Objective To demonstrate pharmacokinetic equivalence of CT-P10 and innovator rituximab (RTX) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with inadequate responses or intolerances to antitumour necrosis factor agents. Methods In this randomised phase I trial, patients with active RA were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive 1000 mg CT-P10 or RTX at weeks 0 and 2 (alongside continued methotrexate therapy). Primary endpoints were area under the serum concentration–time curve from time zero to last quantifiable concentration (AUC_0–last) and maximum serum concentration after second infusion (C_max). Additional pharmacokinetic parameters, efficacy, pharmacodynamics, immunogenicity and safety were also assessed. Data are reported up to week 24. Results 103 patients were assigned to CT-P10 and 51 to RTX. The 90% CIs for the ratio of geometric means (CT-P10/RTX) for both primary endpoints were within the bioequivalence range of 80%–125% (AUC_0–last: 97.7% (90% CI 89.2% to 107.0%); C_max: 97.6% (90% CI 92.0% to 103.5%)). Pharmacodynamics and efficacy were comparable between groups. Antidrug antibodies were detected in 17.6% of patients in each group at week 24. CT-P10 and RTX displayed similar safety profiles. Conclusions CT-P10 and RTX demonstrated equivalent pharmacokinetics and comparable efficacy, pharmacodynamics, immunogenicity and safety. Trial registration number NCT01534884.

This multinational, randomized, double-blind trial, (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02149121) was designed to demonstrate equivalence in pharmacokinetics and efficacy between CT-P10 and innovator rituximab (RTX) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Adults with active RA were treated with CT-P10, United States-sourced RTX (US-RTX; Rituxan®), or European Union-sourced RTX (EU-RTX; MabThera®) at weeks 0 and 2. The co-primary pharmacokinetic endpoints were area under the serum concentration–time curve (AUC) from time zero to last measurable concentration (AUC_0–last), AUC from time zero to infinity (AUC_0–∞), and maximum concentration (C_max) after two infusions. The primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline to week 24 in Disease Activity Score using 28 joints-C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP). Pharmacodynamics, immunogenicity, and safety were also assessed. 372 patients were randomly assigned to CT-P10 (n = 161) or RTX (n = 211 [US-RTX, n = 151; EU-RTX, n = 60]). For the co-primary pharmacokinetic endpoints, 90% confidence intervals (CI) for ratios of geometric means (CT-P10/US-RTX, CT-P10/EU-RTX or EU-RTX/US-RTX) all fell within the equivalence margin of 80–125%. Adjusted least squares (LS) mean (standard error) change from baseline in DAS28-CRP at week 24 was −2.13 (0.175) for CT-P10 and −2.09 (0.176) for RTX. The 95% CI (−0.29, 0.21) of the estimated treatment difference between CT-P10 and RTX (−0.04) was entirely within the efficacy equivalence margin of ±0.5. Pharmacodynamics, immunogenicity, and safety profiles were similar for CT-P10 and RTX. The pharmacokinetics of CT-P10, US-RTX, and EU-RTX were equivalent. CT-P10 and RTX were also equivalent in terms of efficacy and displayed similar pharmacodynamic, immunogenicity, and safety profiles up to week 24.

Background CT-P10 is a biosimilar candidate of innovator rituximab (RTX) that demonstrated a comparable clinical profile to RTX in a phase I randomized controlled trial (RCT) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01534884). Objective This open-label extension (OLE) study (NCT01873443) compared the efficacy and safety of CT-P10 in patients with RA who received CT-P10 from the outset (i.e., from the start of the RCT and also in the OLE; ‘maintenance group’) with those who received RTX during the RCT and switched to CT-P10 during the OLE (‘switch group’). Methods Patients who completed the RCT were recruited. Based on the Disease Activity Score using 28 joints (DAS28) and predefined safety criteria, patients could receive up to two courses of CT-P10 during the OLE. Efficacy [DAS28 and European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response], safety and immunogenicity were assessed. Results Eighty-seven patients were enrolled; 58 and 29 had previously received CT-P10 or RTX, respectively, in the RCT. Of these, 38 (65.5%) and 20 (69.0%) were treated with CT-P10 in the OLE and therefore comprised the maintenance and switch groups, respectively. The mean change in DAS28-erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) from baseline (week 0 of RCT) at week 24 of the first OLE treatment course in the maintenance and switch groups was −2.7 and −2.4, respectively. The proportion of patients with good/moderate EULAR responses was also comparable between groups. Antidrug antibodies were detected in 13.2 and 15.0% of patients in the maintenance and switch groups, respectively, at week 24 of the first OLE course. CT-P10 treatment was well-tolerated when administered for up to 2 years or after switching from RTX. Conclusion In this study population, comparable efficacy and safety profiles were observed in patients who switched from RTX to CT-P10 and those maintained on CT-P10 throughout treatment.

Dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban are direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) that are increasingly used worldwide. Taking into account their widespread use for the prevention of thromboembolism in cardiology, neurology, orthopedics, and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID 19) as well as their different pharmacokinetics and pharmacogenetics dependence, it is critical to explore new opportunities for DOACs administration and predict their dosage when used as monotherapy or in combination with other drugs. In this review, we describe the details of the relative pharmacogenetics on the pharmacokinetics of DOACs as well as new data concerning the clinical characteristics that predetermine the needed dosage and the risk of adverse drug reactions (ADRs). The usefulness of genetic information before and shortly after the initiation of DOACs is also discussed. The reasons for particular attention to these issues are not only new genetic knowledge and genotyping possibilities, but also the risk of serious ADRs (primarily, gastrointestinal bleeding). Taking into account the effect of the carriership of single nucleotide variants (SNVs) of genes encoding biotransformation enzymes and DOACs metabolism, the use of these measures is important to predict changes in pharmacokinetics and the risk of ADRs in patients with a high risk of thromboembolism who receive anticoagulant therapy.

Background CT-P10 is a biosimilar of innovator rituximab (RTX), a biological therapy used to treat patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who have responded inadequately to anti-tumor necrosis factor agents. Objective Our objective was to compare the clinical profile of CT-P10 versus RTX in patients with RA who received up to two courses of treatment and were followed for up to 72 weeks. Methods In this multicenter double-blind phase I study, patients were randomized 2:1 to receive CT-P10 1000 mg or RTX 1000 mg at weeks 0 and 2. Based on disease activity, patients could receive a second course of treatment between weeks 24 and 48. Efficacy endpoints, including mean change from baseline in Disease Activity Score using 28 joints (DAS28), safety, immunogenicity, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics were evaluated. Results In total, 154 patients were randomized to CT-P10 or RTX (n = 103 and 51, respectively); 137 (n = 92 and 45) completed the first course of treatment, of whom 83 (n = 60 and 23) were re-treated. Improvements from baseline in all efficacy endpoints were highly similar between the CT-P10 and RTX groups over both treatment courses. At week 24 after the second course, mean change from week 0 of the first course in DAS28 erythrocyte sedimentation rate was −2.47 and −2.04 for CT-P10 and RTX, respectively, (p = 0.1866) and in DAS28 C-reactive protein was −2.32 and −2.00, respectively (p = 0.3268). The proportion of patients positive for antidrug antibodies at week 24 after the second treatment course was 20.0% and 21.7% in the CT-P10 and RTX groups, respectively. The safety profile of CT-P10 was comparable to that of RTX, and pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties were similar. Conclusions In patients with RA, efficacy, safety, and other clinical data were comparable between CT-P10 and RTX after up to two courses of treatment over 72 weeks. (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01534884).

Patients with tension-type headache (TTH) have an increased risk of developing arterial hypertension (AH), while hypertensive subjects do seem to have an increased risk of TTH. We searched for full-text English publications in databases using keywords and combined word searches over the past 15 years. In addition, earlier publications of historical interest were included in the review. In our review, we summed up the single nucleotide variants (SNVs) of Nitric Oxide Synthases (NOSs) genes involved in the development of essential AH and TTH. The results of studies we discussed in this review are contradictory. This might be due to different designs of the studies, small sample sizes in some of them, as well as different social and geographical characteristics. However, the contribution of genetic and environmental factors remains understudied. This makes the issue interesting for researchers, as understanding these mechanisms can contribute to a search for new approaches to pathogenetic and disease-modifying treatment of the AH and TTH phenotype. New drugs against AH and TTH can be based on inhibition of nitric oxide (NO) production, blockade of steps in the NO-cGMP pathway, or NO scavenging. Indeed, selective neuronal NOS (n-NOS) and inducible NOS (i-NOS) inhibitors are already in early clinical development.