Clinical similarity of biosimilar ABP 501 to adalimumab in the treatment of patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis: A randomized, double-blind, multicenter, phase III study

Background ABP 501 is a biosimilar of adalimumab. Objective We sought to compare the efficacy and safety of ABP 501 with adalimumab. Methods This 52-week, double-blind study randomized patients with moderate to severe psoriasis to ABP 501 or adalimumab. At week 16, those with 50% or more improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score from baseline on ABP 501 continued the same treatment, whereas adalimumab-treated patients were rerandomized to adalimumab or ABP 501. Clinical similarity in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index percent improvement from baseline to week 16 (primary end point) was established if the point estimate of treatment difference and its 2-sided 95% confidence interval between groups was within equivalence margin of ±15. Patients, including those undergoing a single transition at week 16, were evaluated for safety and immunogenicity. Results Psoriasis Area and Severity Index percent improvement at week 16 was 80.9 for ABP 501 and 83.1 for adalimumab (least-square mean difference −2.18 [95% confidence interval −7.39 to 3.02]). Adverse events (67.2% [117/174] vs 63.6% [110/173]) and antidrug antibody incidence (55.2% [96/174] vs 63.6% [110/173]) for ABP 501 vs adalimumab were similar. Safety, including immunogenicity, was similar among groups after single transition (week 20). Limitations The 52-week data are not reported here. Conclusions ABP 501 was shown to be clinically similar to adalimumab. Safety and immunogenicity were not impacted immediately after single transition (adalimumab to ABP 501)

Efficacy and safety of the biosimilar ABP 501 compared with adalimumab in patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis: a randomised, double-blind, phase III equivalence study

Objectives ABP 501 is a Food and Drug Administration-approved biosimilar to adalimumab; structural, functional and pharmacokinetic evaluations have shown that the two are highly similar. We report results from a phase III study comparing efficacy, safety and immunogenicity between ABP 501 and adalimumab. Methods In this randomised, double-blind, active comparator-controlled, 26-week equivalence study, patients with moderate to severe active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) despite methotrexate were randomised (1:1) to ABP 501 or adalimumab (40 mg) every 2 weeks. Primary endpoint was risk ratio (RR) of ACR20 between groups at week 24. Primary hypothesis that the treatments were equivalent would be confirmed if the 90% CI for RR of ACR20 at week 24 fell between 0.738 and 1.355, demonstrating that ABP 501 is similar to adalimumab. Secondary endpoints included Disease Activity Score 28-joint count-C reactive protein (DAS28-CRP). Safety was assessed via adverse events (AEs) and laboratory evaluations. Antidrug antibodies were assessed to determine immunogenicity. Results A total of 526 patients were randomised (n=264, ABP 501; n=262 adalimumab) and 494 completed the study. ACR20 response at week 24 was 74.6% (ABP 501) and 72.4% (adalimumab). At week 24, the RR of ACR20 (90% CI) between groups was 1.039 (0.954, 1.133), confirming the primary hypothesis. Changes from baseline in DAS28-CRP, ACR50 and ACR70 were similar. There were no clinically meaningful differences in AEs and laboratory abnormalities. A total of 38.3% (ABP 501) and 38.2% (adalimumab) of patients tested positive for binding antidrug antibodies. Conclusions Results from this study demonstrate that ABP 501 is similar to adalimumab in clinical efficacy, safety and immunogenicity in patients with moderate to severe RA

Triple assessment in Diagnosis of Benign Breast Diseases: An Institutional Study

Benign breast disease is the most common cause of breast problems in females and it is more frequent than the malignant ones. Benign breast disorders are usually seen in the reproductive period of life are largely thought to be hormone induced  and there is dramatic fall in the incidence after the menopause. Benign Breast lesions deserve attention because of high prevalence, their impact on patients life and due to cancerous potential of some high risk breast lesions. This study was aimed to evaluate the different types of benign breast diseases in females based on clinical, radiological and pathological findings and to assess the overall efficacy of the triple assessment in diagnosing the benign breast diseases . This prospective study was conducted between February 2014 and  September 2015 at Shri ram murti smarak institute of medical sciences, Bareilly. Results: A total  of 250 female patients of benign breast disease were studied. The mean age was 36 years and fibroadenoma was most common benign breast disease followed by fibrocystic disease. Breast lump was most common presentation.  Clinical breast examination had  senstivity of 90%, specificity of 98% and radiological breast examination had senstivity of 86.6% and specificity of 97.2%. FNAC is an excellent method for diagnosing breast lesions with a sensitivity ranging between 89% and 98% and specificity between 98% and 100%. When clinical, radiological and pathological  examinations were combined together, the diagnostic accuracy approached 100%. Conclusion: Triple assessment by clinical , radiological and pathological examination  can be useful in the diagnosis of benign breast lesions

Tezepelumab in Adults and Adolescents with Severe, Uncontrolled Asthma

International audienceBACKGROUND: Tezepelumab is a human monoclonal antibody that blocks thymic stromal lymphopoietin, an epithelial-cell–derived cytokine implicated in the pathogenesis of asthma. The efficacy and safety of tezepelumab in patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma require further assessment.METHODS: We conducted a phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Patients (12 to 80 years of age) were randomly assigned to receive tezepelumab (210 mg) or placebo subcutaneously every 4 weeks for 52 weeks. The primary end point was the annualized rate of asthma exacerbations over a period of 52 weeks. This end point was also assessed in patients with baseline blood eosinophil counts of less than 300 cells per microliter. Secondary end points included the forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) and scores on the Asthma Control Questionnaire–6 (ACQ-6; range, 0 [no impairment] to 6 [maximum impairment]), Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ; range, 1 [maximum impairment] to 7 [no impairment]), and Asthma Symptom Diary (ASD; range, 0 [no symptoms] to 4 [worst possible symptoms]).RESULTS: Overall, 1061 patients underwent randomization (529 were assigned to receive tezepelumab and 532 to receive placebo). The annualized rate of asthma exacerbations was 0.93 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80 to 1.07) with tezepelumab and 2.10 (95% CI, 1.84 to 2.39) with placebo (rate ratio, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.53; P<0.001). In patients with a blood eosinophil count of less than 300 cells per microliter, the annualized rate was 1.02 (95% CI, 0.84 to 1.23) with tezepelumab and 1.73 (95% CI, 1.46 to 2.05) with placebo (rate ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.75; P<0.001). At week 52, improvements were greater with tezepelumab than with placebo with respect to the prebronchodilator FEV1 (0.23 vs. 0.09 liters; difference, 0.13 liters; 95% CI, 0.08 to 0.18; P<0.001) and scores on the ACQ-6 (−1.55 vs. −1.22; difference, −0.33; 95% CI, −0.46 to −0.20; P<0.001), AQLQ (1.49 vs. 1.15; difference, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.47; P<0.001), and ASD (−0.71 vs. −0.59; difference, −0.12; 95% CI, −0.19 to −0.04; P=0.002). The frequencies and types of adverse events did not differ meaningfully between the two groups.CONCLUSIONS: Patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma who received tezepelumab had fewer exacerbations and better lung function, asthma control, and health-related quality of life than those who received placebo. (Funded by AstraZeneca and Amgen; NAVIGATOR ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03347279. opens in new tab.

Efficacy and safety of the biosimilar ABP 501 compared with adalimumab in patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis: a randomised, double-blind, phase III equivalence study

Objectives ABP 501 is a Food and Drug Administration-approved biosimilar to adalimumab; structural, functional and pharmacokinetic evaluations have shown that the two are highly similar. We report results from a phase III study comparing efficacy, safety and immunogenicity between ABP 501 and adalimumab. Methods In this randomised, double-blind, active comparator-controlled, 26-week equivalence study, patients with moderate to severe active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) despite methotrexate were randomised (1:1) to ABP 501 or adalimumab (40 mg) every 2 weeks. Primary endpoint was risk ratio (RR) of ACR20 between groups at week 24. Primary hypothesis that the treatments were equivalent would be confirmed if the 90% CI for RR of ACR20 at week 24 fell between 0.738 and 1.355, demonstrating that ABP 501 is similar to adalimumab. Secondary endpoints included Disease Activity Score 28-joint count-C reactive protein (DAS28-CRP). Safety was assessed via adverse events (AEs) and laboratory evaluations. Antidrug antibodies were assessed to determine immunogenicity. Results A total of 526 patients were randomised (n=264, ABP 501; n=262 adalimumab) and 494 completed the study. ACR20 response at week 24 was 74.6% (ABP 501) and 72.4% (adalimumab). At week 24, the RR of ACR20 (90% CI) between groups was 1.039 (0.954, 1.133), confirming the primary hypothesis. Changes from baseline in DAS28-CRP, ACR50 and ACR70 were similar. There were no clinically meaningful differences in AEs and laboratory abnormalities. A total of 38.3% (ABP 501) and 38.2% (adalimumab) of patients tested positive for binding antidrug antibodies. Conclusions Results from this study demonstrate that ABP 501 is similar to adalimumab in clinical efficacy, safety and immunogenicity in patients with moderate to severe RA