4.3 Article

A multicenter, randomized, open-label, 2-arm parallel study to compare the pharmacokinetics, safety and tolerability of AVT02 administered subcutaneously via prefilled syringe or autoinjector in healthy adults

期刊

EXPERT OPINION ON BIOLOGICAL THERAPY
卷 23, 期 8, 页码 773-780

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/14712598.2022.2131391

关键词

Adalimumab; biosimilar; pharmacokinetics; autoinjector; AVT02; prefilled syringe

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study assessed the pharmacokinetic similarity of AVT02 administered via prefilled syringe (PFS) or autoinjector (AI). The results demonstrated bioequivalence between the two administration methods, with similar safety and immunogenicity profiles.
Background AVT02 is an adalimumab biosimilar, with bioequivalence previously established along with clinical similarity. This study assessed the pharmacokinetic (PK) similarity of a single dose of 100 mg/mL AVT02 administered via prefilled syringe (PFS) or autoinjector (AI). Research design and methods In this open-label, 2-arm, parallel-group study, healthy adults were randomized 1:1 to receive one 40 mg (100 mg/mL) dose of AVT02 subcutaneously via PFS (N = 102) or AI (N = 105). Primary PK parameters (C-max, AUC(0-t) and AUC(0-inf)) were evaluated up to Day 64 of the study. Secondary PK parameters, safety, tolerability and immunogenicity were also assessed. Results The 90% CIs for the ratio of geometric least squares means were contained within the pre-specified 80-125% equivalence margins for the primary PK parameters, demonstrating bioequivalence of AVT02 when administered by PFS or AI. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was comparable between the two groups, with a low frequency of injection site reactions observed. Immunogenicity profiles were also similar between the two groups. Conclusion Bioequivalence was demonstrated for a single dose of AVT02 administered via PFS or AI. These results will help to increase availability of devices for patients, enabling treatment choice and flexibility.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据