TY - JOUR
T1 - Biosimilar Candidate CT-P42 in Diabetic Macular Edema
T2 - 24-Week Results from a Randomized, Active-Controlled, Phase III Study
AU - Wolf, Sebastian
AU - Stanga, Paulo Eduardo
AU - Veselovsky, Milan
AU - Veith, Miroslav
AU - Papp, Andras
AU - Mange, Shobhana
AU - Kanta Mondal, Lakshmi
AU - Romanczak, Dominika
AU - Janco, Ladislav
AU - Chauhan, Rohan
AU - Romanowska-Dixon, Bożena
AU - Eremina, Alena
AU - Zavgorodnya, Nataliya
AU - Dusova, Jaroslava
AU - Sagong, Min
AU - Kim, Sunghyun
AU - Ahn, Keumyoung
AU - Kim, Suyoung
AU - Bae, Youngmin
AU - Lee, Sangmi
AU - Kang, Hyejin
AU - Brown, David M.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2024 American Academy of Ophthalmology
PY - 2024/12
Y1 - 2024/12
N2 - Objective: To demonstrate the therapeutic similarity of CT-P42 compared with reference aflibercept (Eylea) in adult patients with diabetic macular edema (DME). Design: Randomized, active-controlled, double-masked, phase III clinical trial Participants: Patients with a diagnosis of either type 1 or 2 diabetes mellitus with DME involving the center of the macula. Methods: Patients were randomized (1:1) to receive either CT-P42 or reference aflibercept (2 mg/0.05 ml) by intravitreal injection every 4 weeks (5 doses), then every 8 weeks (4 doses), in the main study period. Results up to week 24 are reported herein. Main Outcome Measures: The primary end point was mean change from baseline at week 8 in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) using the ETDRS chart. Equivalence between CT-P42 and reference aflibercept was to be concluded if the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) (global assumptions) and 2-sided 90% CI (United States Food and Drug Administration [FDA] assumptions) for the treatment difference fell entirely within the equivalence margin of ±3 letters, as assessed in the full analysis set. Results: Overall, 348 patients were randomized (CT-P42: 173; reference aflibercept: 175). Best-corrected visual acuity improved from baseline to week 8 in both groups, with a least squares mean (standard error) improvement of 9.43 (0.798) and 8.85 (0.775) letters in the CT-P42 and reference aflibercept groups, respectively. The estimated between-group treatment difference was 0.58 letters, with the CIs within the predefined equivalence margin of ±3 letters (95% CI, −0.73 to 1.88 [global]; 90% CI, −0.52 to 1.67 [FDA]). Through week 24, other efficacy results for the 2 groups, in terms of change in BCVA and retinal central subfield thickness, as well as ETDRS Diabetic Retinopathy Severity Scale score, supported therapeutic similarity. Pharmacokinetics, usability, safety (including the proportions of patients experiencing ≥1 treatment-emergent adverse event [CT-P42: 50.3%; reference aflibercept: 53.7%]), and immunogenicity were also comparable between groups. Conclusions: This study in patients with DME demonstrated equivalence between CT-P42 and reference aflibercept (2 mg/0.05 ml) in terms of efficacy, with similar pharmacokinetic, usability, safety, and immunogenicity profiles. Financial Disclosure(s): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.
AB - Objective: To demonstrate the therapeutic similarity of CT-P42 compared with reference aflibercept (Eylea) in adult patients with diabetic macular edema (DME). Design: Randomized, active-controlled, double-masked, phase III clinical trial Participants: Patients with a diagnosis of either type 1 or 2 diabetes mellitus with DME involving the center of the macula. Methods: Patients were randomized (1:1) to receive either CT-P42 or reference aflibercept (2 mg/0.05 ml) by intravitreal injection every 4 weeks (5 doses), then every 8 weeks (4 doses), in the main study period. Results up to week 24 are reported herein. Main Outcome Measures: The primary end point was mean change from baseline at week 8 in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) using the ETDRS chart. Equivalence between CT-P42 and reference aflibercept was to be concluded if the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) (global assumptions) and 2-sided 90% CI (United States Food and Drug Administration [FDA] assumptions) for the treatment difference fell entirely within the equivalence margin of ±3 letters, as assessed in the full analysis set. Results: Overall, 348 patients were randomized (CT-P42: 173; reference aflibercept: 175). Best-corrected visual acuity improved from baseline to week 8 in both groups, with a least squares mean (standard error) improvement of 9.43 (0.798) and 8.85 (0.775) letters in the CT-P42 and reference aflibercept groups, respectively. The estimated between-group treatment difference was 0.58 letters, with the CIs within the predefined equivalence margin of ±3 letters (95% CI, −0.73 to 1.88 [global]; 90% CI, −0.52 to 1.67 [FDA]). Through week 24, other efficacy results for the 2 groups, in terms of change in BCVA and retinal central subfield thickness, as well as ETDRS Diabetic Retinopathy Severity Scale score, supported therapeutic similarity. Pharmacokinetics, usability, safety (including the proportions of patients experiencing ≥1 treatment-emergent adverse event [CT-P42: 50.3%; reference aflibercept: 53.7%]), and immunogenicity were also comparable between groups. Conclusions: This study in patients with DME demonstrated equivalence between CT-P42 and reference aflibercept (2 mg/0.05 ml) in terms of efficacy, with similar pharmacokinetic, usability, safety, and immunogenicity profiles. Financial Disclosure(s): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.
KW - Aflibercept
KW - Biosimilar
KW - CT-P42
KW - Diabetic macular edema
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85203626785&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85203626785&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.oret.2024.06.013
DO - 10.1016/j.oret.2024.06.013
M3 - Article
C2 - 38942386
AN - SCOPUS:85203626785
SN - 2468-6530
VL - 8
SP - 1163
EP - 1173
JO - Ophthalmology Retina
JF - Ophthalmology Retina
IS - 12
ER -