Efficacy and safety of CT-P47 versus reference tocilizumab: 32-week results of a randomised, active-controlled, double-blind, phase III study in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, including 8 weeks of switching data from reference tocilizumab to CT-P47

ObjectivesTo demonstrate efficacy equivalence of CT-P47 and EU-approved reference tocilizumab (r-TCZ) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).MethodsThis double-blind, phase III study randomised (1:1) patients to receive CT-P47 or r-TCZ (8 mg/kg) every 4 weeks until week 20 during treatment perio...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inRheumatic & musculoskeletal diseases open Vol. 10; no. 4; p. e004514
Main Authors Smolen, Josef S, Trefler, Jakub, Racewicz, Artur, Jaworski, Janusz, Zielińska, Agnieszka, Krogulec, Marek, Jeka, Sławomir, Wojciechowski, Rafał, Kolossa, Katarzyna, Dudek, Anna, Krajewska-Włodarczyk, Magdalena, Hrycaj, Paweł, Klimiuk, Piotr Adrian, Burmester, Gerd R, Kim, SungHyun, Bae, YunJu, Yang, GoEun, Jung, YooBin, Hong, JiWoo, Keystone, Edward
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published England EULAR 18.10.2024
BMJ Publishing Group LTD
BMJ Publishing Group
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:ObjectivesTo demonstrate efficacy equivalence of CT-P47 and EU-approved reference tocilizumab (r-TCZ) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).MethodsThis double-blind, phase III study randomised (1:1) patients to receive CT-P47 or r-TCZ (8 mg/kg) every 4 weeks until week 20 during treatment period (TP) 1. Prior to week 24 dosing, patients receiving r-TCZ were randomised (1:1) to continue r-TCZ or switch to CT-P47; patients receiving CT-P47 continued CT-P47 (TP2, 8 mg/kg every 4 weeks until week 48). The dual primary endpoints (for different regulatory requirements) were mean changes from baseline in Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28; erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR)) at week 12 and week 24. Efficacy equivalence was determined if CIs for the treatment difference were within predefined equivalence margins: (95% CI −0.6, 0.6 (analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)) at week 12 or 90% CI −0.6, 0.5 (ANCOVA with multiple imputation) at week 24). Additional efficacy, pharmacokinetic (PK) and safety endpoints, including immunogenicity, were investigated. Findings up to week 32 are presented.ResultsIn TP1, 471 patients were randomised (234 CT-P47; 237 r-TCZ). The 95% and 90% CIs for the estimated treatment differences were contained within the predefined equivalence margins; the estimated difference in DAS28-ESR at week 12 was –0.01 (95% CI −0.26, 0.24) and at week 24 was −0.10 (90% CI −0.30, 0.10). Secondary efficacy endpoints, PKs and overall safety were comparable between groups up to week 32.ConclusionsEfficacy equivalence, alongside comparable PK, safety and immunogenicity profiles, was determined between CT-P47 and r-TCZ in adults with RA, including after switching from r-TCZ to CT-P47.
Bibliography:Original research
ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
content type line 23
ObjectType-Undefined-3
Additional supplemental material is published online only. To view, please visit the journal online (https://doi.org/10.1136/rmdopen-2024-004514).
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.
JSS has received payments to institution from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Galapagos, and Roche; personal fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Ananda, Astro, BMS, Celltrion, Inc., Chugai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Immunovant, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, R-Pharma, Samsung, Sanofi, and UCB; payments or honoraria from Eli Lilly; and support for meeting attendance from Eli Lilly. MK has received support for meeting attendance from Accord, Egis, Medac, and Sandoz. SJ has received consulting fees from AbbVie, Celltrion, Inc., Eli Lilly, Gilead, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and UCB; and payments or honoraria from AbbVie, Celltrion, Inc., Eli Lilly, Gilead, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and UCB. RW has received speaker fees from Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, SOBI, and UCB; support for meeting attendance from AbbVie; and is involved in the leadership of the Polish Rheumatology Society. MKW has received payments or honoraria from AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Medac, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, SOBI and UCB; and support for meeting attendance from AbbVie, Medac, Novartis, Pfizer, and SOBI. PH has received research grants from Celltrion, Inc. GB has received honoraria for consulting and lectures from Celltrion, Inc., Chugai, Fresenius, and Sanofi. EK has received consulting fees/served on advisory boards for AbbVie, Celltrion, Inc., Eli Lilly, GSK, Pfizer, Sandoz, and Samsung Bioepsis; and has received speaker fees from AbbVie, Celltrion, Inc., GSK, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, and Sandoz. SHK is an employee of Celltrion, Inc. YJB, YBJ, GEY, and JWH are employees of Celltrion, Inc., and hold stocks in Celltrion, Inc. JT, AR, JJ, AZ, AD, KK, and PAK report no disclosures.
ISSN:2056-5933
2056-5933
DOI:10.1136/rmdopen-2024-004514