Back

Biosimilarity of GBPD002 compared with Eprex(R) through clinical evaluation in human

Nag, K.; Mohiuddin, M.; Mahtab, M. A.; Bachar, S. C.; Rahim, M. A.; Uddin, M. H.; Kumar, S.; Khan, M. M. R.; Sarker, M. E. H.; Chowdhury, M. M. R.; Roy, R.; Chakraborty, S.; Biswas, B. K.; Bappi, M. E. H.; Roy, R.; Barman, U.; Sultana, N.

2023-01-31 pharmacology and therapeutics
10.1101/2023.01.29.23285155 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundThe biosimilarity for erythropoietin (EPO) functionality of GBPD002 (test candidate) and Eprex(R) (comparator) has been evaluated by comparing the pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) properties following subcutaneous injection. MethodsThis was a randomized, double-blinded, two-sequence, crossover clinical trial. Subjects were randomly assigned and received a dose (4,000 IU) of either the test or comparator EPO, and received the alternative formulations after 4-weeks of washout period. ResultsThe PK parameters, viz., maximum observed concentration (Cmax) and area under the curve extrapolated to infinity (AUC0-inf), were calculated with the serum EPO concentrations from blood samples and were found comparable for both formulations. The geometric mean ratios (at 90% CI) of the Cmax and AUCinf were 0.89 and 1.16, respectively, which were within the regulatory range of 0.80 - 1.25. The time-matched serum EPO concentrations and PD markers (reticulocyte, hematocrit, hemoglobin, and red blood cell) denoted a counterclockwise hysteresis, suggesting a time delay between the observed concentration and the response. ANOVA-derived P-values (>0.05) for the effectors clearly revealed the similarity between effects on PD markers for the test and comparator drugs. Both formulations were found tolerated well, and anti-drug antibodies were not observed. ConclusionsThus, the two formulations are projected to be used interchangeably in clinical settings.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Clinical and Translational Science
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
38.8%
2
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.4%
3
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 23%
7.4%
50% of probability mass above
4
Frontiers in Pharmacology
100 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
6.5%
5
Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics
25 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.4%
6
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.7%
7
Pharmaceutics
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.2%
8
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
9
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 52%
1.9%
10
The FASEB Journal
175 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.3%
11
Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications
11 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.1%
12
Infectious Diseases and Therapy
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.0%
13
Transplantation
13 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.0%
14
BMJ
49 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.0%
15
Blood Cancer Journal
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.0%
16
BMJ Nutrition, Prevention & Health
10 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.9%
17
Journal of Cellular and Molecular Medicine
18 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.9%
18
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 15%
0.7%
19
International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents
15 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.7%
20
JMIRx Med
31 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.5%
21
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 14%
0.5%
22
Frontiers in Psychiatry
83 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.5%
23
Pharmacology Research & Perspectives
11 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.5%
24
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal
216 papers in training set
Top 12%
0.5%