4.7 Article

A randomised, double-blind, multicentre, parallel-group, prospective study comparing the pharmacokinetics, safety, and efficacy of CT-P13 and innovator infliximab in patients with ankylosing spondylitis: the PLANETAS study

期刊

ANNALS OF THE RHEUMATIC DISEASES
卷 72, 期 10, 页码 1605-1612

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2012-203091

关键词

-

资金

  1. CELLTRION Inc.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives To compare the pharmacokinetics (PK), safety and efficacy of innovator infliximab (INX) and CT-P13, a biosimilar to INX, in patients with active ankylosing spondylitis (AS). Methods Phase 1 randomised, double-blind, multicentre, multinational, parallel-group study. Patients were randomised to receive 5mg/kg of CT-P13 (n=125) or INX (n=125). Primary endpoints were area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) at steady state and observed maximum steady state serum concentration (C-max,C-ss) between weeks 22 and 30. Additional PK, efficacy endpoints, including 20% and 40% improvement response according to Assessment in Ankylosing Spondylitis International Working Group criteria (ASAS20 and ASAS40), and safety outcomes were also assessed. Results Geometric mean AUC was 32765.8gh/ml for CT-P13 and 31359.3gh/ml for INX. Geometric mean C-max,C-ss was 147.0 g/ml for CT-P13 and 144.8g/ml for INX. The ratio of geometric means was 104.5% (90% CI 94% to 116%) for AUC and 101.5% (90% CI 95% to 109%) for C-max,C-ss. ASAS20 and ASAS40 responses at week 30 were 70.5% and 51.8% for CT-P13 and 72.4% and 47.4% for INX, respectively. In the CT-P13 and INX groups more than one adverse event occurred in 64.8% and 63.9% of patients, infusion reactions occurred in 3.9% and 4.9%, active tuberculosis occurred in 1.6% and 0.8%, and 27.4% and 22.5% of patients tested positive for anti-drug antibodies, respectively. Conclusions The PK profiles of CT-P13 and INX were equivalent in patients with active AS. CT-P13 was well tolerated, with an efficacy and safety profile comparable to that of INX up to week 30.

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

4.7
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