Mucopolysaccharidosis type II is a severe lysosomal storage disease caused by deficient activity of the enzyme iduronate-2-sulfatase. The only medicinal product approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for enzyme replacement therapy, recombinant iduronate-2-sulfatase (idursulfase, Elaprase®), is a large molecule that is not able to cross the blood-brain barrier and neutralize progressive damage of the central nervous system caused by the accumulation of glycosaminoglycans. Novel chimeric protein HIR-Fab-IDS is an anti-human insulin receptor Fab fragment fused to recombinant modified iduronate-2-sulfatase. This modification provides a highly selective interaction with the human insulin receptor, which leads to the HIR-Fab-IDS crossing the blood-brain barrier owing to internalization of the hybrid molecule by transcytosis into endothelial cells adjacent to the nervous system by the principle of a 'molecular Trojan horse'. In this work, the physicochemical and biological characterization of a blood-brain barrier-penetrating fusion protein, HIR-Fab-IDS, is carried out. HIR-Fab-IDS consists of an anti-human insulin receptor Fab fragment fused to recombinant iduronate-2-sulfatase. Comprehensive analytical characterization utilizing modern techniques (including surface plasmon resonance and mass spectrometry) was performed using preclinical and clinical batches of HIR-Fab-IDS. Critical quality parameters that determine the therapeutic effect of iduronate-2-sulfatase, as well as IDS enzymatic activity and in vitro cell uptake activity were evaluated in comparison with the marketed IDS product Elaprase® (IDS RP). In vivo efficiency of HIR-Fab-IDS in reversing mucopolysaccharidosis type II pathology in IDS-deficient mice was also investigated. The affinity of the chimeric molecule for the INSR was also determined by both an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and surface plasmon resonance. We also compared the distribution of 125I-radiolabeled HIR-Fab-IDS and IDS RP in the tissues and brain of cynomolgus monkeys after intravenous administration. The HIR-Fab-IDS primary structure investigation showed no significant post-translational modifications that could affect IDS activity, except for the formylglycine content, which was significantly higher for HIR-Fab-IDS compared with that for IDS RP (~76.5 vs ~67.7%). Because of this fact, the specific enzyme activity of HIR-Fab-IDS was slightly higher than that of IDS RP (~2.73 × 106U/μmol vs ~2.16 × 106U/μmol). However, differences were found in the glycosylation patterns of the compared IDS products, causing a minor reduced in vitro cellular uptake of HIR-Fab-IDS by mucopolysaccharidosis type II fibroblasts compared with IDS RP (half-maximal effective concentration ~26.0 vs ~23.0nM). The efficacy of HIR-Fab-IDS in IDS-deficient mice has demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in the level of glycosaminoglycans in the urine and tissues of the main organs to the level of healthy animals. The HIR-Fab-IDS has revealed high in vitro affinity for human and monkey insulin receptors, and the radioactively labeled product has been shown to penetrate to all parts of the brain and peripheral tissues after intravenous administration to cynomolgus monkeys. These findings indicate that HIR-Fab-IDS, a novel iduronate-2-sulfatase fusion protein, is a promising candidate for the treatment of central nervous system manifestations in neurological mucopolysaccharidosis type II.

This study aimed to evaluate the long-term retention and safety of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) and targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs) and identify the factors associated with drug withdrawal in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with interstitial lung disease (ILD) enrolled in the Korean College of Rheumatology Biologics and Targeted Therapy registry. We investigated adults with RA (n=2266) administered with bDMARDs or tsDMARDs between 2012 and 2021. Propensity score matching (1:3) was performed between patients with RA with ILD(RA-ILD) and without ILD (RA-no ILD). The Kaplan-Meier method was used to analyse drug survival and a logistic regression model to identify withdrawal-related factors in RA-ILD. One hundred and fifty-nine patients with RA-ILD were matched with 477 patients with RA-no ILD. The 5-year drug retention rate was lower in RA-ILD than in RA-no ILD (log-rank p=0.020), and both the ILD and no-ILD groups had statistical differences of drug retention rate among agents (log-rank p=0.019 and 0.020, respectively). In the RA-ILD group, Janus kinase inhibitors had the highest drug retention rate (64.3%), and tumour necrosis factor-α inhibitors showed the lowest retention rate (30.6%). Approximately 58.5% and 48.4% of the patients with RA-ILD and RA-no ILD, respectively, withdrew from their regimen, and the main cause of withdrawal in RA-ILD was adverse events, followed by inefficacy. In the logistic regression analysis, current smoking had a negative effect on drug retention (odds ratio [OR]: 9.938, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.550-38.733; p<0.001), while concomitant corticosteroid use had a protective effect against withdrawal (OR: 0.284, 95% CI: 0.008-0.917; p=0.035) in RA-ILD. The patients with RA-ILD had lower bDMARD and tsDMARD retention rates than those with RA-no ILD. In the RA-ILD group, current smoking and concomitant corticosteroid use were associated factors affecting drug withdrawal.

Biologic drugs have greatly improved treatment outcomes of inflammatory joint diseases, but a substantial proportion of patients either do not respond to treatment or lose response over time. Drug immunogenicity, manifested as the formation of anti-drug antibodies (ADAb), constitute a significant clinical problem. Anti-drug antibodies influence the pharmacokinetics of the drug, are associated with reduced clinical efficacy, and an increased risk of adverse events such as infusion reactions. The prevalence of ADAb differs among drugs and diseases, and the detection of ADAb also depends on the assay format. Most data exist for the tumor necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors infliximab and adalimumab, with a frequency of ADAb that ranges from 10 to 60% across studies. Measurement of ADAb and serum drug concentrations, therapeutic drug monitoring, has been suggested as a strategy to optimize therapy with biologic drugs. Although the recent randomized clinical Norwegian Drug Monitoring (NOR-DRUM) trials show promise towards a personalized medicine prescribing approach by therapeutic drug monitoring, several challenges remain. A plethora of assay formats, with widely differing properties, is currently used for measuring ADAb. Comparing results between different assays and laboratories is difficult, which complicates the development of cut-offs necessary for guidelines and the implementation of ADAb measurements in clinical practice. With the possible exception of infliximab, limited data on clinical relevance and cost effectiveness exist to support therapeutic drug monitoring as a routine clinical strategy to monitor biologic drugs in inflammatory joint diseases. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of the characteristics and prevalence of ADAb, predisposing factors to ADAb formation, commonly used assessment methods, clinical consequences of ADAb, and the potential implications of ADAb assessments for everyday treatment of inflammatory joint diseases.

In the recent past, proteolysis-targeting chimera (PROTAC) technology has received enormous attention for its ability to overcome the limitations of protein inhibitors and its capability to target undruggable proteins. The PROTAC molecule consists of three components, a ubiquitin E3 ligase ligand, a linker, and a target protein ligand. The application of this technology is rapidly gaining momentum, especially in cancer therapy. In this review, we first look at the history of degraders, followed by a section on the ubiquitin proteasome system (UPS) and E3 ligases used in PROTAC development. PROTACs are dependent on the UPS for degradation of target proteins. We further discuss the scope and design of degraders and mitigation strategies for overcoming the hook effect seen with degraders. As PROTACs do not follow Lipinski's 'Rule of 5', these molecules face drug metabolism and pharmacokinetic challenges. A detailed section on absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion of degraders is provided wherein we discuss methodologies and strategies to surmount the challenges faced by these molecules. For understanding PROTAC-mediated degradation, the characterization and measurement of protein levels in cells is important. Currently used techniques and recent advancements in assessment tools for degraders are discussed. Furthermore, we examine the challenges and emerging technologies that need to be focused on in order to competently develop potent degraders. Many companies are working in this area of emerging new modality and a few PROTACs have already entered clinical trials; the details of the trials are included in this review.

Refractory, or uncontrolled, gout is a chronic, progressive, inflammatory arthropathy resulting from continued urate deposition after failed attempts to lower serum uric acid below the therapeutic threshold with oral urate-lowering therapies such as allopurinol and febuxostat. Recombinant uricase is increasingly being used to treat refractory gout; however, the immunogenicity of uricase-based therapies has limited the use of these biologic therapies. Antidrug antibodies against biologic therapies, including uricase and PEGylated uricase, can lead to loss of urate-lowering response, increased risk of infusion reactions, and subsequent treatment failure. However, co-therapy with an immunomodulator can attenuate antidrug antibody development, potentially increasing the likelihood of sustained urate lowering, therapy course completion, and successful treatment outcomes. This review summarizes evidence surrounding the use of immunomodulation as co-therapy with recombinant uricases.

Biologics are indicated for the treatment of a wide range of conditions and have transformed care in several therapeutic areas; however, they are expensive for both health care systems and patients. The use of biosimilars, which are approved by the USFood and Drug Administration as being "highly similar" to the originator biologic, has the potential to change the health care landscape in the biologic space through considerable cost savings for both payors and patients. With the introduction of biosimilars, organizations are increasingly evaluating how to switch patients from originator biologics to biosimilars. While published studies have evaluated the outcomes of patients switched from originator biologics to biosimilars, there are few publications describing the process health care systems have used to adopt and switch patients to biosimilars. Since 2016, Kaiser Permanente Colorado (KPCO) has undertaken several biosimilar switches starting with the first biosimilar introduced to the market, filgrastim, and has been able to successfully switch 91.8% of patients receiving infliximab, 99.8% receiving rituximab, and 100% receiving filgrastim, trastuzumab, and bevacizumab originator biologics to their respective biosimilars. In an effort to support other health care systems and provide a framework for implementing biosimilar switches, the purpose of this paper is to describe the biosimilar switch model and share learnings from the KPCO experience.

The increasing numbers of elderly patients and rising incidence of maculopathy raise concerns over arterial thromboembolic events (ATEs) with the use of intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) medications. This study aimed to compare the risk of ATEs between aflibercept and ranibizumab for maculopathy. We conducted a retrospective population-based cohort study analyzing Taiwan's National Health Insurance Database during 2011-2017 to identify patients with maculopathy receiving intravitreal aflibercept or ranibizumab. The primary outcome was any hospitalization or emergency room visit because of ATEs, including ischemic heart disease (IHD), ischemic stroke (IS), and transient ischemic attack (TIA). The secondary outcome was mortality within 30 days after occurrence of ATE. We employed propensity score methods to generate more homogeneous groups for comparison. We included 5791 aflibercept users and 14,534 ranibizumab users in this study. Compared with the ranibizumab group, the aflibercept group was associated with a lower risk of ATE (hazard ratio [HR] 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.80-0.91), with HRs of 0.86 for IHD (95% CI 0.80-0.93), 0.87 for IS (95% CI 0.76-1.00), and 0.57 for TIA (95% CI 0.46-0.71). The risk of 30-day mortality after ATE (HR 1.39; 95% CI 0.80-2.43) and the risk of all-cause mortality (HR 1.02; 95% CI 0.89-1.17) in the aflibercept group was similar to that in the ranibizumab group. The use of aflibercept in patients with maculopathy was associated with a lower risk of ATE than was the use of ranibizumab. There was no difference in mortality risk between the two groups. Our study could provide strong grounds for future prospective studies to confirm the findings.

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a common inflammatory dermatologic disease clinically characterized by intense itch, recurrent eczematous lesions, and a chronic or relapsing disease course. Mild-to-moderate AD can be controlled by using moisturizers and topical immunomodulators such as topical corticosteroids and calcineurin inhibitors. If topical therapies fail, phototherapy and systemic immunosuppressant therapies, such as ciclosporin, methotrexate, and azathioprine, can be considered. However, relapse and side effects could still occur. The pathogenesis of AD involves epidermal barrier dysfunction, skin microbiome abnormalities, and cutaneous inflammation. Inflammatory mediators, such as interleukin (IL)-4, IL-13, IL-31, IL-33, IL-17, IL-23, and thymic stromal lymphopoietin, are involved in AD development. Therefore, a series of biological agents targeting these cytokines are promising approaches for treating AD. Dupilumab is the first biological agent approved for the treatment of AD in patients aged 6 years and older in the United States. Tralokinumab, lebrikizumab, and nemolizumab have also been confirmed to have significant efficacy against AD in phase III or IIb clinical trials. Also, fezakinumab was effective in severe AD patients in a phase IIa trial. However, phase II trials of ustekinumab, tezepelumab, etokimab, secukinumab, and omalizumab have failed to meet their primary endpoints. Phase II trials of GBR 830 and KHK 4083 are ongoing. In general, further studies are needed to explore new therapeutic targets and improve the efficacy of biological agents.

BackgroundBevacizumab is an antiangiogenic recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody that inhibits tumor growth. FKB238, a bevacizumab biosimilar, has analytical pharmacokinetic and safety profiles similar to those of bevacizumab.ObjectiveThis phase III trial (NCT02810457) compared the efficacy and safety of FKB238 with that of bevacizumab in patients with advanced/recurrent non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (non-sq-NSCLC).MethodsThis global, multicenter, double-blind, parallel, randomized, comparative clinical trial enrolled and randomized patients with advanced/recurrent non-sq-NSCLC to receive intravenous infusions of either FKB238 15 mg/kg or bevacizumab 15 mg/kg. All patients received intravenous infusions of paclitaxel 200 mg/m2 and carboplatin (area under the curve 6.0) immediately prior to investigational products for 4–6 cycles. FKB238 and bevacizumab were administered on day 1 of each 21-day cycle until objective progressive disease by RECIST version 1.1 or other discontinuation criteria were met. The primary efficacy endpoint was overall response rate (ORR), including complete and partial response and based on blinded independent central review assessment. Other efficacy determinations included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and immunogenicity. Adverse events and severity were reported.ResultsThe ORR for the intent-to-treat (ITT) population (N = 731) was 51.6% in the FKB238 arm (N = 364) and 53.7% in the bevacizumab arm (N = 367). The FKB238:bevacizumab ORR ratio (ITT population) was 0.96 (90% confidence interval [CI] 0.86–1.08), and the difference in ORR (per-protocol set) between FKB238 and bevacizumab was − 0.02 (95% CI − 0.09 to 0.06). Both CIs fell within the prespecified equivalence margins. Estimated median PFS was 7.72 and 7.62 months in the FKB238 and bevacizumab arms, respectively (hazard ratio 0.97; 95% CI 0.82–1.16). Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported for 94.2% and 95.1% of patients in the FKB238 and bevacizumab arms, respectively. Grade 3 or higher TEAEs were reported for 53.6% and 55.5% of patients in the FKB238 and bevacizumab arms, respectively. Serious TEAEs were reported for 25.1% and 26.0% of patients treated with FKB238 and bevacizumab, respectively.ConclusionsEfficacy equivalence was demonstrated between the two drugs, and safety profiles were similar. There were no meaningful differences in efficacy and safety between FKB238 or bevacizumab in patients with non-sq-NSCLC.Trial registration numberNCT02810457.

The principles of comparability assessments have been accepted globally as offering sensitive and reliable tools with which to evaluate potential changes to biologics that may arise either through processing changes or through the creation of a copy (biosimilar) by a different sponsor. The comparability approach has evolved through systematic advances in four areas: clear and convergent guidelines for evaluation of potential changes to biologics; risk-based systems of weighting analytical data; progressive improvements in analytical methods; and advanced understanding of post-translational modifications. Routine regulatory expectations for clinical equivalence data are being reevaluated, as they seldom contribute to the assessment of similarity. Similarly, we show that requirements to compare biosimilars and locally sourced versions of their reference products are of questionable scientific value and represent a double standard by comparison with the invariable acceptance of the clinical profiles of novel biologics without reference to their sources. The consistent application of evidentiary standards for comparability to all biologics offers an opportunity for regulators to curtail their own assessments of new biosimilars and instead to recognize comparability assessments made in another jurisdiction (reliance), thereby gaining important efficiencies in the regulatory review of biosimilars and improving the competitiveness of the biosimilars market. Such consistency can also enhance the confidence of all stakeholders, especially patients and their providers, in all biologics.