You are here

Positive Results Reported for Potential Humira Biosimilar

Pivotal study investigates monoclonal antibody

The comparative, confirmatory REFLECTIONS B538-02 study has met its primary objective by demonstrating equivalent efficacy, as measured by the American College of Rheumatology 20 (ACR20) response rate at week 12, between PF-06410293 (Pfizer) and Humira (adalimumab, AbbVie). PF-06410293, a monoclonal antibody, is being developed as a potential biosimilar to Humira.

The REFLECTIONS B538-02 trial is a multinational, randomized, double-blind, two-arm, parallel-group study designed to evaluate the safety, efficacy, and immunogenicity of PF-06410293 compared with that of Humira in combination with methotrexate when administered subcutaneously to treat patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who have shown an inadequate response to methotrexate therapy. A total of 597 subjects were enrolled in the study.

Humira is approved in the United States for multiple indications, including RA, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, adult Crohn’s disease, pediatric Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, plaque psoriasis, hidradenitis suppurativa, and uveitis.

PF-06410293 is an investigational compound and has not received regulatory approval in any country. Biosimilarity has not yet been established by regulatory authorities and is not yet claimed by the compound’s developer.

Source: Pfizer; January 5, 2017.

Recent Headlines

Despite older, sicker patients, mortality rate fell by a third in 10 years
Study finds fewer than half of trials followed the law
WHO to meet tomorrow to decide on international public heath emergency declaration
Study of posted prices finds wild variations and missing data
Potential contamination could lead to supply chain disruptions
Acasti reports disappointing results for a second Omega-3-based drug
Declining lung cancer mortality helped fuel the progress
Kinase inhibitor targets tumors with a PDGFRA exon 18 mutation
Delayed surgery reduces benefits; premature surgery raises risks