A critical review of the United States regulatory pathways for determining the equivalence of efficacy between CT-P13 and original infliximab (Remicade®)

Soohyun Kim, 1, 2,* Siun Kim, 1, 2,* Howard Lee 1– 4 1Department of Transdisciplinary Studies, Graduate School of Convergence Science and Technology, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea; 2Center for Convergence Approaches in Drug Development, Graduate School of Convergence Science an...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Kim S, Lee H
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Dove Medical Press 2020-07-01
Series:Drug Design, Development and Therapy
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.dovepress.com/a-critical-review-of-the-united-states-regulatory-pathways-for-determi-peer-reviewed-article-DDDT
_version_ 1828476712296382464
author Kim S
Kim S
Lee H
author_facet Kim S
Kim S
Lee H
author_sort Kim S
collection DOAJ
description Soohyun Kim, 1, 2,* Siun Kim, 1, 2,* Howard Lee 1– 4 1Department of Transdisciplinary Studies, Graduate School of Convergence Science and Technology, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea; 2Center for Convergence Approaches in Drug Development, Graduate School of Convergence Science and Technology, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea; 3Department of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Seoul National University College of Medicine and Hospital, Seoul, Korea; 4Department of Molecular Medicine and Biopharmaceutical Sciences, Graduate School of Convergence Science and Technology, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea*These authors contributed equally to this workCorrespondence: Howard LeeDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Seoul National University College of Medicine and Hospital, 103 Daehak-Ro, Jongno-Gu, Seoul 110-799, KoreaTel +82 2-740-7602Fax +82 31-888-9575Email howardlee@snu.ac.krAbstract: We evaluated the appropriateness of various equivalence margins for CT-P13, an infliximab biosimilar, in the PLANETRA clinical trial. The 95– 95% method was used to independently determine an equivalence margin by pooling the historical clinical trials with original infliximab versus placebo, identified in a systematic literature search. The constancy assumption with the PLANETRA trial was assessed for each identified historical clinical trial to decide which study was scientifically justifiable to be pooled. A sensitivity analysis was performed for each study-pooling scenario. As a result, we identified two historical clinical trials that were deemed appropriate, whereas the PLANETRA trial pooled three additional studies to determine an equivalence margin, which was accepted by the United States Food and Drug Administration. However, those extra clinical trials did not meet the constancy assumption in baseline characteristics, methotrexate dose, and efficacy assessment time. The clinically more appropriate equivalence margin was 5.7 percentage points, which was much narrower than the 12 percentage points applied in the approval of CT-P13. In conclusion, the equivalence claim for CT-P13 to original infliximab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis did not appear to be supported when the constancy assumption was strictly assessed. The equivalence margin for biosimilars could be determined more conservatively.Keywords: biosimilar, equivalence margin, rheumatoid arthritis, infliximab, CT-P13
first_indexed 2024-12-11T06:32:41Z
format Article
id doaj.art-05ae623b0bc5481bb32e4df3d0cb0b0b
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 1177-8881
language English
last_indexed 2024-12-11T06:32:41Z
publishDate 2020-07-01
publisher Dove Medical Press
record_format Article
series Drug Design, Development and Therapy
spelling doaj.art-05ae623b0bc5481bb32e4df3d0cb0b0b2022-12-22T01:17:27ZengDove Medical PressDrug Design, Development and Therapy1177-88812020-07-01Volume 142831284055437A critical review of the United States regulatory pathways for determining the equivalence of efficacy between CT-P13 and original infliximab (Remicade®)Kim SKim SLee HSoohyun Kim, 1, 2,* Siun Kim, 1, 2,* Howard Lee 1– 4 1Department of Transdisciplinary Studies, Graduate School of Convergence Science and Technology, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea; 2Center for Convergence Approaches in Drug Development, Graduate School of Convergence Science and Technology, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea; 3Department of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Seoul National University College of Medicine and Hospital, Seoul, Korea; 4Department of Molecular Medicine and Biopharmaceutical Sciences, Graduate School of Convergence Science and Technology, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea*These authors contributed equally to this workCorrespondence: Howard LeeDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Seoul National University College of Medicine and Hospital, 103 Daehak-Ro, Jongno-Gu, Seoul 110-799, KoreaTel +82 2-740-7602Fax +82 31-888-9575Email howardlee@snu.ac.krAbstract: We evaluated the appropriateness of various equivalence margins for CT-P13, an infliximab biosimilar, in the PLANETRA clinical trial. The 95– 95% method was used to independently determine an equivalence margin by pooling the historical clinical trials with original infliximab versus placebo, identified in a systematic literature search. The constancy assumption with the PLANETRA trial was assessed for each identified historical clinical trial to decide which study was scientifically justifiable to be pooled. A sensitivity analysis was performed for each study-pooling scenario. As a result, we identified two historical clinical trials that were deemed appropriate, whereas the PLANETRA trial pooled three additional studies to determine an equivalence margin, which was accepted by the United States Food and Drug Administration. However, those extra clinical trials did not meet the constancy assumption in baseline characteristics, methotrexate dose, and efficacy assessment time. The clinically more appropriate equivalence margin was 5.7 percentage points, which was much narrower than the 12 percentage points applied in the approval of CT-P13. In conclusion, the equivalence claim for CT-P13 to original infliximab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis did not appear to be supported when the constancy assumption was strictly assessed. The equivalence margin for biosimilars could be determined more conservatively.Keywords: biosimilar, equivalence margin, rheumatoid arthritis, infliximab, CT-P13https://www.dovepress.com/a-critical-review-of-the-united-states-regulatory-pathways-for-determi-peer-reviewed-article-DDDTbiosimilarequivalence marginrheumatoid arthritisinfliximabct-p13
spellingShingle Kim S
Kim S
Lee H
A critical review of the United States regulatory pathways for determining the equivalence of efficacy between CT-P13 and original infliximab (Remicade®)
Drug Design, Development and Therapy
biosimilar
equivalence margin
rheumatoid arthritis
infliximab
ct-p13
title A critical review of the United States regulatory pathways for determining the equivalence of efficacy between CT-P13 and original infliximab (Remicade®)
title_full A critical review of the United States regulatory pathways for determining the equivalence of efficacy between CT-P13 and original infliximab (Remicade®)
title_fullStr A critical review of the United States regulatory pathways for determining the equivalence of efficacy between CT-P13 and original infliximab (Remicade®)
title_full_unstemmed A critical review of the United States regulatory pathways for determining the equivalence of efficacy between CT-P13 and original infliximab (Remicade®)
title_short A critical review of the United States regulatory pathways for determining the equivalence of efficacy between CT-P13 and original infliximab (Remicade®)
title_sort critical review of the united states regulatory pathways for determining the equivalence of efficacy between ct p13 and original infliximab remicade reg
topic biosimilar
equivalence margin
rheumatoid arthritis
infliximab
ct-p13
url https://www.dovepress.com/a-critical-review-of-the-united-states-regulatory-pathways-for-determi-peer-reviewed-article-DDDT
work_keys_str_mv AT kims acriticalreviewoftheunitedstatesregulatorypathwaysfordeterminingtheequivalenceofefficacybetweenctp13andoriginalinfliximabremicadereg
AT kims acriticalreviewoftheunitedstatesregulatorypathwaysfordeterminingtheequivalenceofefficacybetweenctp13andoriginalinfliximabremicadereg
AT leeh acriticalreviewoftheunitedstatesregulatorypathwaysfordeterminingtheequivalenceofefficacybetweenctp13andoriginalinfliximabremicadereg
AT kims criticalreviewoftheunitedstatesregulatorypathwaysfordeterminingtheequivalenceofefficacybetweenctp13andoriginalinfliximabremicadereg
AT kims criticalreviewoftheunitedstatesregulatorypathwaysfordeterminingtheequivalenceofefficacybetweenctp13andoriginalinfliximabremicadereg
AT leeh criticalreviewoftheunitedstatesregulatorypathwaysfordeterminingtheequivalenceofefficacybetweenctp13andoriginalinfliximabremicadereg