Innovative approaches to biologic development on the trail of CT-P13: biosimilars, value-added medicines, and biobetters.

The biosimilar concept is now well established. Clinical data accumulated pre- and post-approval have supported biosimilar uptake, in turn stimulating competition in the biologics market and increasing patient access to biologics. Following technological advances, other innovative biologics, such as "biobetters" or "value-added medicines," are now reaching the market. These innovative biologics differ from the reference product by offering additional clinical or non-clinical benefits. We discuss these innovative biologics with reference to CT-P13, initially available as an intravenous (IV) biosimilar of reference infliximab. A subcutaneous (SC) formulation, CT-P13 SC, has now been developed. Relative to CT-P13 IV, CT-P13 SC offers clinical benefits in terms of pharmacokinetics, with comparable efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity, as well as increased convenience for patients and reduced demands on healthcare system resources. As was once the case for biosimilars, nomenclature and regulatory pathways for innovative biologics require clarification to support their uptake and ultimately benefit patients

P766 No difference in progression of disability 2 years after stopping infliximab or immunosuppressant vs. continuing combination therapy in patients with CD in sustained steroid-free remission: a subanalysis of SPARE

Meeting abstract du "19th Congress of ECCO", Stockholm, Suède, 21-24 février, 2024International audienceBackground In the SPARE trial, the discontinuation of infliximab (IFX) in patients with Crohn’s disease (CD) in sustained remission under combination therapy (IFX and immunosuppressant therapy), was associated with a significantly higher relapse rate than when continuing combination therapy or discontinuing immunosuppressant therapy. However, a high proportion of patients rapidly recover remission when resuming treatment. The impact of this treatment strategy on functional disability, a major endpoint in assessing CD progression, has been poorly studied. We aimed to compare the evolution of the IBD-disability index (IBD-DI) in patients continuing combination therapy, discontinuing IFX or immunosuppressant therapy. Methods The study of the evolution of the IBD-DI in the 3 groups (combination, IFX withdrawal, immunosuppressant withdrawal), between baseline and the end of study (2 years), was a pre-defined secondary endpoint of the trial. Changes in scores (between baseline and the end of study) were compared using Wilcoxon tests between the arms “combination group” versus “IFX withdrawal group” and between “immunosuppressant withdrawal group” versus “IFX withdrawal group”. Results IBD-DI was available at baseline and at the end of study for 153 patients out of the 211 randomised in the SPARE trial between November 2015 and April 2019 (46 in the combination group, 55 in the IFX withdrawal group, and 52 in the immunosuppressant withdrawal group) and those were included in the analysis. Table 1 summarizes baseline characteristics of these patients. 30 patients had a relapse (6 [13%] of 46 in the combination group, 19 [34.5%] of 55 in the IFX withdrawal group, 5 [9.6%] of 52 in the immunosuppressant withdrawal group). Of 23 patients who had a relapse and were retreated or optimised according to protocol, remission was achieved in 21 patients (1 of 2 in the combination group, 18 of 19 in the IFX withdrawal group, and 2 of 2 in the immunosuppressant withdrawal group). The median IBD-DI at baseline was 12.5 (IQR, 5.36-21.43), without significant differences between the 3 groups. Figure 1 shows changes in the IBD-DI between baseline and the end of study in the 3 groups. There was no significant difference in terms of changes in IBD-DI between the arms "combination group" and "IFX withdrawal group" (p=0.56), or between the arms "immunosuppressant withdrawal group” and "IFX withdrawal group" (p=0.29). Conclusion In patients with CD in sustained steroid-free remission under combination therapy with IFX and immunosuppressant therapy, there was no difference in progression of disability over 2 years between those who continued combination therapy, stopped IFX or stopped the immunosuppressant with the possibility of recycling the medication after a relapse

Pregnancy outcomes in inflammatory bowel disease patients treated with vedolizumab, anti-TNF or conventional therapy: results of the European CONCEIVE study

BACKGROUND: Women with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) often receive biologicals during pregnancy to maintain disease remission. Data on outcome of vedolizumab-exposed pregnancies (VDZE) are sparse. AIMS: To assess pregnancy and child outcomes of VDZE pregnancies and to compare these results to anti-TNF exposed (TNFE) or both immunomodulatory and biologic unexposed (CON IBD) pregnancies. METHODS: A retrospective multicentre case-control observational study was performed. RESULTS: VDZE group included 79 pregnancies in 73 IBD women. The TNFE and CON IBD group included 186 pregnancies (162 live births) in 164 IBD women and 184 pregnancies (163 live births) in 155 IBD women, respectively. At conception, cases more often had active disease ([VDZE: 36% vs TNFE: 17%, P = .002] and [VDZE: 36% vs CON IBD: 24%, P = .063]). No significant difference in miscarriage rates were found between groups (VDZE and TNFE: 16% vs 13%, P = .567; VDZE and CON IBD: 16% vs 10%, P = .216). In live-born infants, median gestational age and birthweight were similar between groups. Median Apgar score at birth was numerically equal. Prematurity was similar in the VDZE group compared to the control groups, even when correcting for disease activity during pregnancy. The frequency of congenital anomalies was comparable between groups as were the percentages of breastfed babies. During the first year of life, no malignancies were reported and infants' infection risk did not significantly differ between groups. CONCLUSION: No new safety signal was detected in VDZE pregnancies although larger, prospective studies are required for confirmation.status: publishe

Pregnancy outcomes in inflammatory bowel disease patients treated with vedolizumab, anti-TNF or conventional therapy: results of the European CONCEIVE study.

Women with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) often receive biologicals during pregnancy to maintain disease remission. Data on outcome of vedolizumab-exposed pregnancies (VDZE) are sparse.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

Etrolizumab versus infliximab for the treatment of moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (GARDENIA): a randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, phase 3 study

Background: Etrolizumab is a gut-targeted anti-β7 integrin monoclonal antibody. In a previous phase 2 induction study, etrolizumab significantly improved clinical remission versus placebo in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis. We aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of etrolizumab with infliximab in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis. Methods: We conducted a randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group, phase 3 study (GARDENIA) across 114 treatment centres worldwide. We included adults (age 18–80 years) with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (Mayo Clinic total score [MCS] of 6–12 with an endoscopic subscore of ≥2, a rectal bleeding subscore of ≥1, and a stool frequency subscore of ≥1) who were naive to tumour necrosis factor inhibitors. Patients were required to have had an established diagnosis of ulcerative colitis for at least 3 months, corroborated by both clinical and endoscopic evidence, and evidence of disease extending at least 20 cm from the anal verge. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive subcutaneous etrolizumab 105 mg once every 4 weeks or intravenous infliximab 5 mg/kg at 0, 2, and 6 weeks and every 8 weeks thereafter for 52 weeks. Randomisation was stratified by baseline concomitant treatment with corticosteroids, concomitant treatment with immunosuppressants, and baseline disease activity. All participants and study site personnel were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who had both clinical response at week 10 (MCS ≥3-point decrease and ≥30% reduction from baseline, plus ≥1-point decrease in rectal bleeding subscore or absolute rectal bleeding score of 0 or 1) and clinical remission at week 54 (MCS ≤2, with individual subscores ≤1); efficacy was analysed using a modified intention-to-treat population (all randomised patients who received at least one dose of study drug). GARDENIA was designed to show superiority of etrolizumab over infliximab for the primary endpoint. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02136069, and is now closed to recruitment. Findings: Between Dec 24, 2014, and June 23, 2020, 730 patients were screened for eligibility and 397 were enrolled and randomly assigned to etrolizumab (n=199) or infliximab (n=198). 95 (48%) patients in the etrolizumab group and 103 (52%) in the infliximab group completed the study through week 54. At week 54, 37 (18·6%) of 199 patients in the etrolizumab group and 39 (19·7%) of 198 in the infliximab group met the primary endpoint (adjusted treatment difference –0·9% [95% CI –8·7 to 6·8]; p=0·81). The number of patients reporting one or more adverse events was similar between treatment groups (154 [77%] of 199 in the etrolizumab group and 151 [76%] of 198 in the infliximab group); the most common adverse event in both groups was ulcerative colitis (55 [28%] patients in the etrolizumab group and 43 [22%] in the infliximab group). More patients in the etrolizumab group reported serious adverse events (including serious infections) than did those in the infliximab group (32 [16%] vs 20 [10%]); the most common serious adverse event was ulcerative colitis (12 [6%] and 11 [6%]). There was one death during follow-up, in the infliximab group due to a pulmonary embolism, which was not considered to be related to study treatment. Interpretation: To our knowledge, this trial is the first phase 3 maintenance study in moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis to use infliximab as an active comparator. Although the study did not show statistical superiority for the primary endpoint, etrolizumab performed similarly to infliximab from a clinical viewpoint. Funding: F Hoffmann-La Roche

Etrolizumab as induction and maintenance therapy for ulcerative colitis in patients previously treated with tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (HICKORY): a phase 3, randomised, controlled trial

Background: Etrolizumab is a gut-targeted, anti-β7 integrin, monoclonal antibody. In an earlier phase 2 induction study, etrolizumab significantly improved clinical remission compared with placebo in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of etrolizumab in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis who had been previously treated with anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) agents. Methods: HICKORY was a multicentre, phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in adult (18–80 years) patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (Mayo Clinic total score [MCS] of 6–12 with an endoscopic subscore of ≥2, a rectal bleeding subscore of ≥1, and a stool frequency subscore of ≥1) previously treated with TNF inhibitors. Patients were recruited from 184 treatment centres across 24 countries in North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Oceania, and the Middle East. Patients needed to have an established diagnosis of ulcerative colitis for at least 3 months, corroborated by both clinical and endoscopic evidence, and evidence of disease extending at least 20 cm from the anal verge. In cohort 1, patients received open-label etrolizumab 105 mg every 4 weeks for a 14-week induction period. In cohort 2, patients were randomly assigned (4:1) to receive subcutaneous etrolizumab 105 mg or placebo every 4 weeks for the 14-week induction phase. Patients in either cohort achieving clinical response to etrolizumab induction were eligible for the maintenance phase, in which they were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive subcutaneous etrolizumab 105 mg or placebo every 4 weeks through to week 66. Randomisation was stratified by baseline concomitant treatment with corticosteroids, concomitant treatment with immunosuppressants (induction randomisation only), baseline disease activity, week 14 MCS remission status (maintenance randomisation only), and induction cohort (maintenance randomisation only). All patients and study site personnel were masked to treatment assignment. Primary endpoints were remission (Mayo Clinic total score [MCS] ≤2, with individual subscores of ≤1 and a rectal bleeding subscore of 0) at week 14, and remission at week 66 among patients with a clinical response (MCS with ≥3-point decrease and ≥30% reduction from baseline, plus ≥1 point decrease in rectal bleeding subscore or absolute rectal bleeding score of 0 or 1) at week 14. Efficacy was analysed using a modified intent-to-treat population. Safety analyses included all patients who received at least one dose of study drug during the induction phase. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02100696. Findings: HICKORY was conducted from May 21, 2014, to April 16, 2020, during which time 1081 patients were screened, and 609 deemed eligible for inclusion. 130 patients were included in cohort 1. In cohort 2,479 patients were randomly assigned to the induction phase (etrolizumab n=384, placebo n=95). 232 patients were randomly assigned to the maintenance phase (etrolizumab to etrolizumab n=117, etrolizumab to placebo n=115). At week 14, 71 (18·5%) of 384 patients in the etrolizumab group and six (6·3%) of 95 patients in the placebo group achieved the primary induction endpoint of remission (p=0·0033). No significant difference between etrolizumab and placebo was observed for the primary maintenance endpoint of remission at week 66 among patients with a clinical response at week 14 (27 [24·1%] of 112 vs 23 [20·2%] of 114; p=0·50). Four patients in the etrolizumab group reported treatment-related adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation. The proportion of patients reporting at least adverse event was similar between treatment groups for induction (etrolizumab 253 [66%] of 384; placebo 63 [66%] of 95) and maintenance (etrolizumab to etrolizumab 98 [88%] of 112; etrolizumab to placebo 97 [85%] of 114). The most common adverse event in both groups was ulcerative colitis flare. Most adverse events were mild or moderate. During induction, the most common serious adverse event was ulcerative colitis flare (etrolizumab ten [3%] of 384; placebo: two [2%] of 95). During maintenance, the most common serious adverse event in the etrolizumab to etrolizumab group was appendicitis (two [2%] of 112) and the most common serious adverse events in the etrolizumab to placebo group were ulcerative colitis flare (two [2%] of 114) and anaemia (two [2%] of 114). Interpretation: HICKORY demonstrated that a significantly higher proportion of patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis who had been previously treated with anti-TNF agent were able to achieve remission at week 14 when treated with etrolizumab compared with placebo; however, there was no significant difference between groups in remission at week 66 among patients with a clinical response at week 14. Funding: F Hoffmann-La Roche