Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2022 Nov 14;17(11):e0275611. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0275611

Efficacy and safety of a new ranibizumab biosimilar CKD-701 using a pro re nata treatment regimen in neovascular age-related macular degeneration: A phase 3 randomized clinical trial

Chang Ki Yoon 1,#, Jaeryung Oh 2,#, Kunho Bae 1, Un Chul Park 1, Kyung-Sang Yu 3, Hyeong Gon Yu 1,*
Editor: Demetrios G Vavvas4
PMCID: PMC9662729  PMID: 36374913

Abstract

Purpose

This study aimed to establish the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity equivalence of the proposed biosimilar CKD-701 with the reference ranibizumab in patients with treatment-naïve neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD).

Patients and methods

A total of 312 participants with active subfoveal choroidal neovascularization were randomly assigned to either the CKD-701 (n = 156) or reference ranibizumab (n = 156) arms. The initial 3-month loading intraocular injections were followed by pro re nata (PRN) dosing for 9 months. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with less than 15-letters of corrected visual acuity (BCVA) loss at 3 months visit (one month after last loading injection) compared to the baseline time point. The presence of retinal fluid, and changes in BCVA and central retinal thickness (CRT) were assessed as secondary efficacy outcomes. Immunogenicity and safety were evaluated in both treatment arms.

Results

In the CKD-701 arm, 143 (97.95%) patients lost <15 letters in the BCVA at 3 months compared to 143 (98.62%) in the reference arm (P = 0.67). The BCVA improved with a mean improvement of +7.0 (CKD-701) and +6.2 (ranibizumab) letters at 3 months (P = 0.43). The least-squares mean (SE) changes in CRT at 3 months from the baseline were −119.3 (12.0) μm and −124.5 (11.9) μm in the CKD-701 and ranibizumab groups, respectively (P = 0.74). The proportion of participants with subretinal or intraretinal fluid at 3, 6, and 12 months was similar between the study arms. The number (SE) of injections were 8.36 (3.13) in the CKD-701 and 8.26 (2.92) in ranibizumab (P = 0.62). The occurrence of adverse events and antidrug antibody in the study arms were also not statistically different.

Conclusion

CKD-701 is a biosimilar to the reference ranibizumab in terms of efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity for the treatment of patients with nAMD. Moreover, improvement and maintenance of visual outcome were achieved through PRN regimen.

Introduction

Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is the most common cause of permanent blindness among the elderly in developed countries [1], as the prevalence of macular degeneration increases with age. The number of patients with neovascular AMD (nAMD) has increased owing to the rapidly aging population [2]. Intraretinal or choroidal neovascularization (CNV) is a hallmark of nAMD, and the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) is the primary target for nAMD treatment [3]. Therapeutic agents for wet AMD, such as ranibizumab, aflibercept, and brolucizumab block the VEGF, which plays an important role in angiogenesis [4]. Ranibizumab is a humanized murine anti-VEGF-A monoclonal antibody fragment that binds to and neutralizes the active isoforms of VEGF-A. It was first approved for wet AMD in the United States in 2005 and the clinical indications have expanded from AMD to diabetic retinopathy, retinal vascular occlusion disease, and myopic CNV [57]. As a result, the clinical demand for anti-VEGF agents is increasing [8].

Since the patents for these drugs have recently expired, biosimilars are therefore being developed [911]. The relatively high cost of the original biological agents likely limits some patient access to these treatments; by contrast, biosimilar agents can help reduce costs and improve patient accessibility. For example, Razumab (Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad, GJ, India), a biosimilar to innovator ranibizumab, has gained marketing approval (in 2015) in India for nAMD, diabetic macular edema, and retinal vein occlusion [8,9]. In addition, several phase 3 clinical trials for ranibizumab or other aflibercept biosimilars have been completed or are in progress [9,12,13].

Biosimilars are biological medicinal products that contain a version of the active substance of an already authorized original biological medicinal product (reference medicinal product) [14]. Although Biosimilars are similar in terms of quality characteristics, biological activity, safety, and efficacy based on a comprehensive comparability exercise, unlike chemical drugs, their pharmacological properties cannot be assumed to be the same because the entire molecular structure of biosimilars may not be identical to the reference [14]. CKD-701 is a novel candidate biosimilar to ranibizumab. The present study is a phase 3 clinical trial conducted to investigate the similarity in efficacy and safety between CKD-701 and the reference ranibizumab in patients with nAMD.

Materials and methods

This was a randomized, double-blind, parallel group, comparative multicenter, phase 3 clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy, safety, pharmacokinetic (PK) properties, and immunogenicity of the test biosimilar CKD-701 with the reference ranibizumab in patients with nAMD. The study was conducted in compliance with the protocol approved by the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety of Korea and in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and Korean Good Clinical Practices. The clinical study protocol and protocol amendments were reviewed and approved by an independent ethics committee or the institutional review board at each clinical site. This clinical trial was registered in Korean Ministry of health and welfare as well as clinicaltrial.gov at the beginning, but the registration to the clinicaltrial.gov was delayed due to technical errors. (NCT04857177). The authors confirm that all ongoing and related trials for this drug/intervention are registered. A written informed consent form was obtained by each patient before entering the study.

This study was conducted in 25 hospitals across Korea. Participants were >50 years old with newly diagnosed anti-VEGF treatment-naïve active subfoveal CNV secondary to AMD in the study eye. The total neovascular lesion area (including neovascularization, blood, and scar) was <12 disc areas, of which at least 50% were active CNV lesions. Eligibility was confirmed through a masked assessment of fluorescein/indocyanine green angiography and optical coherence tomography images using a centralized and independent image reading center (Seoul Reading Center). Additionally, 78–34 letter score (20/32 to 20/200, Snellen equivalent) of best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was required in the study eye (Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study [ETDRS] letters). The key exclusion criteria included prior intravitreal anti-VEGF treatment in either eye; history of verteporfin photodynamic therapy, laser photocoagulation, pars plana vitrectomy, or other surgical intervention for AMD in the study eye; history of intravitreal corticosteroid therapy or intravitreal device implantation within 6 months before screening in the study eye; ocular disease other than AMD such as infection, uveitis, diabetic retinopathy in the study eye or fellow eye, which can influence the treatment intervention efficacy. Detailed inclusion and exclusion criteria are described in study protocol and patients undergoing systemic infection (S1 File).

After confirmation of eligibility, patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to the CKD-701 arm or the reference ranibizumab arm. Stratified randomization is performed based on the presence of polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy to subjects through the Interactive Web Response System. Participants, investigators, and site personnel remained blinded throughout the study, except for the IP injection investigator and the staff assigned to maintain the masked records and codes for medications, and those who were responsible for the release of medications and maintenance of the logs. Participants received 0.5 mg (0.05 mL of 10 mg/mL solution) of either CKD-701 or the reference ranibizumab (through intravitreal injection for a 12-month treatment period. The treatment schedule consisted of an initial monthly dosing phase for 3 months, followed by the PRN treatment phase until 12 months. The PRN injection criteria were as follows: 1) decreased visual acuity (ETDRS) by more than five letters compared to the baseline (visit 2, baseline) and the previous highest visual acuity during the study period, 2) presence of sub or intraretinal fluid (including new or remaining cases), 3) presence of sub-or intraretinal hemorrhage (including new or remaining cases), 4) identification of new CNV, and 5) central retinal thickness (CRT) increase by ≥50 µm compared to the previous lowest value. After 3 months of administration (loading phase), the clinical trial drug was re-administered when any one of the PRN administration criteria were met.

The primary objective was to compare the efficacy of intravitreal injections of the ranibizumab biosimilar CKD-701 against the reference product in terms of preventing vision loss, as determined by the proportion of patients who lost fewer than 15 letters of visual acuity at 3 months compared to the baseline value. The baseline time point means the time of randomization. Efficacy assessment was performed based on BCVA as assessed using the ETDRS chart. Secondary endpoints included the proportion of participants who lost <15 letters at 6 and 12 months; who lost >15 letters at 3, 6, and 12 months; who had changes in BCVA from the baseline at 3, 6, and 12 months; who had changes in CRT from baseline at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months; and the presence of intraretinal or subretinal fluid at 3, 6, and 12 months. CRT value was recalculated after manual modification of segmentation in OCT B-scans by independent retina experts of image reading center if automatic segmentation of device was improper.

Serum concentrations of CKD-701 and Ranibizumab at pre-dose and at 1, 7, 30, 60, and 90 days after the first injection were used for PK analysis, and PK parameters were calculated through a non-compartmental method using Phoenix WinNonlin® version 8.0 (Certara, St. Louis, MO, USA). The primary PK parameters were maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) and the area under the concentration–time curve from time zero to the last quantifiable time point (AUClast). The AUClast was calculated using the linear up-log down trapezoidal method. The immunogenicity evaluation included the development of anti-drug antibodies (ADAs) and neutralizing antibodies. The safety assessment included ophthalmic and systemic adverse events, vital signs, and laboratory examinations.

In the pivotal study of ranibizumab, the study group of ranibizumab 0.5 mg was compared to the placebo control group, the difference between ranibizumab 0.5 mg and the placebo group was estimated 30% (95% CI: 23%, 37%) [15]. Based on these results, the equivalence margin of this clinical trial was set to 11.5% by applying the 50% rule to the lower confidence interval (23%). Assuming a significance level of 5%, a power of 80% and 1drop-out rate of 15% after 3 consecutive injections, the number of cases required for analysis is 155 per each group.

Statistical analyses were performed using the SAS software (version 9.4, SAS Institute). In terms of “bias toward the null,” which may accidentally prove equivalence from the underestimation of the treatment effect due to low compliance in clinical trials, the main analysis group was assigned as the per-protocol (PP) set and the auxiliary analysis group was assigned as the full analysis set (FAS). The validity data were then analyzed. The proportion of patients with visual loss <15 letters in the BCVA at 3 months compared to the baseline, which is the primary efficacy endpoint, was presented as the number of participants and the proportion (%) between the treatment groups. The equivalence was demonstrated when the 95% confidence interval of the difference in the treatment groups was within the equivalence limits of -11.5% and 11.5%. For the secondary efficacy evaluation variable, descriptive statistics between the administration groups were presented according to each time point. A P value less than .05 was considered significant.

Results

In this study, a total of 312 participants (156 patients in the biosimilar CKD-701 test arm and 156 patients in the reference ranibizumab arm) were randomized in 25 centers across Korea (Fig 1). Participants recruitment and follow-up were conducted from September 2019 to March 2021. A total of 310 randomized participants received at least one dose of the study medication (156 patients in the test arm and 154 patients in the reference arm) and were included in the safety analysis set. Of the 310 dosed participants, 19 discontinued the loading phase, with major protocol deviation. Therefore, the PP population for this study only included 291 participants (146 patients in the CKD-701 arm and 145 patients in the reference arm). Of the 146 participants included in PP population from biosimilar arm, 57 (39.04%) were females and 89 (60.96%) were males. The mean (SD) age of these patients was 72.2 (8.09) years. In the reference product arm, of the 145 participants in the PP population, 64 (44.14%) were females and 81 (55.86%) were males, with a mean (SD) age of 71.9 (8.79) years. The demographic characteristics of the patients enrolled in both arms were comparable in terms of age, height, and weight. A total of 277 participants completed the study, which included 135 (92.47%) in the biosimilar test arm and 142 (97.93%) in the reference arm. A total of 14 participants were discontinued from the study before loading phase completion, which included nine (6.16%) in the test arm and three (2.07%) in the reference arm. Details regarding patient disposition are presented in Table 1 and Fig 1.

Fig 1. Patient disposition.

Fig 1

SAF, safety analysis set; FAS, full analysis set; PPS, per-protocol set.

Table 1. Baseline characteristics: Per protocol set.

CKD-701 (n = 146) Reference ranibizumab (n = 145) Total (n = 291)
Age, years, mean (SD) 72.18 (8.09) 71.91 (8.79) 72.05 (8.43)
Age group, years, n (%)
 50–64 25(17.12) 30(20.69) 55(18.90)
 >65 121(82.88) 115(79.31) 236(81.10)
Sex, female/male, n (%) 57 (39.04) / 89 (60.96) 64 (44.14) / 81 (55.86) 121 (41.58) / 170 (58.42)
Height, cm, mean (SD) 161.73 (9.37) 160.47 (8.53) 161.11 (8.97)
Weight, kg, mean (SD) 64.93 (10.49) 62.32 (11.35) 63.63 (10.98)
Body mass index 24.77 (3.03) 24.12 (3.34) 24.45 (3.20)
Duration of wet AMD, month, Mean (SD) 0.37(1.20) 1.51(7.05) 0.94(5.07)
Binocular/Monocular, n (%) 22(15.07) / 124(84.93) 21(14.48) / 124(85.52) 43(14.78) / 248(85.22)
Lesion size, disc area, % 2.81(2.07) 2.45(1.80) 2.63(1.94)
Ratio of CNV area to lesion 70.23(18.94) 69.55(18.88) 69.89(18.88)
Central retinal thickness, µm 415.29(160.92) 401.54(153.61) 408.44(157.20)

SD, standard deviation; CNV, choroidal neovascularization.

Efficacy assessment

Severe vision loss at 3, 6, and 12 months compared to the baseline

In the primary efficacy analysis, 143 (97.95%) patients lost <15 letters in the BCVA at 3 months in the CKD-701 arm, compared to 143 (98.62%) in the reference arm (P = 0.67). The proportion of patients with visual loss <15 letters in the BCVA at 6 and 12 months compared to the baseline was 97.92% (141/144 patients) and 95.52% (128/134 patients) in the CKD-701 arm, and 97.90% (140/143 patients) and 95.65% (132/138 patients) in the reference arm, respectively. No statistically significant difference was observed between the two arms (P = 0.99 and 0.98 at 6 and 12 months, respectively) (Table 2).

Table 2. Visual loss or gain from the baseline and at 3, 6, and 12 months: Per protocol analysis set.
CKD-701 (n = 146) Reference ranibizumab (n = 145) Risk difference (SE) 95% confidence interval P-value
Participants who lost <15 letters in BCVA from the baseline, n (%)
 3 months 143(97.95) 143(98.62) -0.66(1.52) -3.63, 2.32 0.67
 6 months 141(97.92) of 144* 140(97.90) of [143]* 0.02(1.69) -3.29, 3.33 0.97
 12 months 128(95.52) of 134** 132(95.65) of [138]** -0.07(2.48) -4.93, 4.79 0.98
Participants who gain ≥15 letters in BCVA from the baseline, n (%)
 3 months 24(16.44) 25(17.24) -0.89(4.36) -9.44, 7.67 0.84
 6 months 31(21.53)* 28(19.58)* 1.92(4.77) -7.43, 11.26 0.69
 12 months 33(24.63)** 29(21.01)** 3.53(5.08) -6.43, 13.48 0.49
Participants who lost ≥ 15 letters in BCVA from baseline, n(%)
 3 months 3(2.05) 2(1.38) 0.66(1.52) -2.32, 3.63 0.67
 6 months 3(2.08)* 3(2.10)* -0.02(1.69) -3.33, 3.29 0.99
 12 months 6(4.48)** 6(4.35)** 0.07(2.48) -4.79, 4.93 0.98

Cochran–Mantel–Haenszel Test (Covariate: PCV presence).

BCVA, best corrected visual acuity; SE, standard error.

*: Among the per protocol set participants, two were excluded from the analysis in the CKD-701 group (two dropouts during months 3–6), and two in the reference group (one dropout and one non-visit due to COVID-19 during months 3–6).

**: Among the per protocol set participants, 12 were excluded from the analysis in the CKD-701 group (two dropouts during months 3–6 and 10 dropouts during months 6–12), and seven in the reference group (one dropout during months 3–6 and six dropouts during months 6–12).

Change in best corrected visual acuity

The results of the secondary efficacy analysis of 291 participants corresponding to the PP set are summarized in Table 3. The BCVA of the CKD-701 group was 59.38 letters (±13.10) at the baseline and 66.42 letters (±15.06), 66.08 letters (±16.55), and 66.07 letters (±18.09) at 3, 6, and 12 months after the first intravitreal injection, respectively (Fig 2). The BCVA of the reference group was 60.19 letters (±12.68) at the baseline and 66.37 letters (±13.66), 67.75 letters (±13.29), and 67.13 letters (±14.30) at 3, 6, and 12 months after administration, respectively. The PP set analysis of the proportion of patients from the CKD-701 group who exhibited visual improvement of ≥15 letters in the BCVA at 3, 6, and 12 months compared to the baseline, were 16.44% (24/146 patients), 21.53% (31/144 patients), and 24.63% (33/134 patients), respectively. In the reference group, the proportion was 17.24% (25/145 patients), 19.58% (28/143 patients), and 21.01% (29/138 patients), respectively. Vision loss more than 15 letters was in 3 eyes (2.05%) vs 2 eyes (1.38%) at 3-month visit in CKD-701 arm and reference arm, respectively. No statistically significant difference was observed between the administration groups across all time points (all P>0.05).

Table 3. Changes in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at 3, 6, and 12 months: Per protocol analysis set.
CKD-701 Reference ranibizumab Test results
n LS-Mean (SE) Mean (SD) P-value n LS-Mean (SE) Mean (SD) P-value LS-Mean Diff (SE) 95% CI P-value
BCVA (letters)
 Baseline 146 59.38(13.10) 145 60.19(12.68)
 3 months 146 66.42(15.06) 145 66.37(13.66)
 6 months 144* 66.08(16.55) 143* 67.75(13.29)
 12 months 134** 66.07(18.09) 138** 67.13(14.30)
CFB at 3 months 146 7.14(0.84) 7.04(9.59) <0.0001 T 145 6.28(0.83) 6.18(9.05) <0.0001 W 0.87(1.10) -1.29, 3.02 0.43
CFB at 6 months 144 6.93(0.99) 6.76(12.18) <0.0001 W 143 7.36(0.99) 7.20(9.60) <0.0001 W -0.43(1.30) -2.98, 2.13 0.743
CFB at 12 months 134 6.84(1.14) 6.44(13.94) <0.0001 W 138 7.22(1.11) 6.85(10.36) <0.0001 W -0.38(1.49) -3.31, 2.54 0.80

CFB, change from baseline; BCVA, best corrected visual acuity; SD, standard deviation; SE, standard error; LS-Mean, least squares mean; CI, confidence interval.

[1] Paired t-test (T) or Wilcoxon signed rank test (W) result for change from baseline.

[2] 95% confidence interval for LS-mean differences between treatment groups.

[3] ANCOVA results for LS-mean comparison between administration groups (covariate: PCV presence or absence).

*: Among the per protocol set participants, two were excluded from the analysis in the CKD-701 group (two dropouts during months 3–6), and two in the reference group (one dropout and one non-visit due to COVID-19 during months 3–6).

**: Among the per protocol set participants, 12 were excluded from the analysis in the CKD-701 group (two dropouts during months 3–6 and 10 dropouts during months 6–12), and seven in the reference group (one dropout during months 3–6 and six dropouts during months 6–12).

Fig 2. Mean ± standard deviation (SD) change in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) (upper) and central retinal thickness (lower) during the study (per-protocol analysis set).

Fig 2

Central retinal thickness and the presence of intraretinal or subretinal fluid

The 291 patients in the PP set from both treatment groups exhibited a sustained decrease in CRT after the first dose of the study medication. At the baseline, the CRT was 415.29 µm (±160.92) in the CKD-701 group and 401.54 µm (±153.61) in the reference group. According to the covariance analysis, the least square mean change in CRT at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months from the baseline among those in the CKD-701 arm were -97.36 µm (±10.07), -119.33 µm (±11.96), -118.16 µm (±12.39), and -123.50 µm (±13.35), respectively. Both administration groups showed significantly decreased CRT at all time points (all P<0.0001). Moreover, these values were not statistically different from the -98.87 µm (±10.07), -124.52 µm (±11.94), -128.81 µm (±12.36), and -130.84 µm (±13.08) in the reference arm (all P>0.05). The proportion of patients without intraretinal or subretinal fluid at 3, 6, and 12 months was also not different between the CKD-701 arm (54.11%, 48.61%, and 50.00%, respectively) and the reference arm (64.14%, 48.25%, and 52.17%, respectively) (all P>0.05).

Number of injections during the study period and the PRN period

During the entire clinical trial period, the average number of administrations of the investigational drug was 8.36 (±3.13) in the CKD-701 group and 8.26 (±2.92) in the reference group. No statistically significant difference was observed between the groups (P = 0.619). Furthermore, the mean number of administrations during the PRN phase was 5.76 (±2.76) in the CKD-701 group and 5.43 (±2.75) in the reference group. Similarly, there was no statistically significant difference between groups (P = 0.298).

Immunogenicity and pharmacokinetics

There was a low cumulative incidence of antidrug antibodies up to 12 months, and this observation was similar between the treatment groups (CKD-701, 0 of 156 [0%]; reference, 2 of 156 [1.30%]). Similarly, when comparing the antibody incidence rate at each time point and the cumulative incidence rate up to 12 months during the entire clinical trial period, no statistically significant difference was observed between the administration groups at all time points (all P>0.05).

A total of 24 patients were enrolled for PK analysis; however, only the PK data from 22 patients were utilized because two patients were administered bevacizumab in their contralateral eye, which could affect the serum concentration of ranibizumab. Based on comparable Cmax and AUClast values, the PK profiles of the test and reference drugs were similar (Figs 3 and 4).

Fig 3. Mean systemic ranibizumab concentration-time profile (left: Linear scale, right: Log scale).

Fig 3

Circles represent the mean and the error bar represents the standard deviation at each timepoint. Serum samples for the measurements of antibody concentration were obtained pre-dose (trough serum concentration [Ctrough]) and 24 to 72 hours post-dose (close to maximum serum concentration [Cmax]) at day 0, 30, 60, and 90 and at day 1. The lower limit was 0.05 μg/L (Test: CKD-701, Reference: Lucentis).

Fig 4. Individual pharmacokinetic parameters of CKD-701 and ranibizumab (left: Cmax, right: AUClast).

Fig 4

Cmax: Maximum plasma concentration, AUClast: The area under the concentration–time curve from time zero to the last quantifiable time point.

Safety assessment

Treatment-emergent adverse events

The safety analysis set (Fig 1) consisted of all participants who received at least one administration of the study drug during the period after randomization. Adverse events that occurred during the study are listed in Table 4. Adverse events were recorded in 157 (50.65%) of 310 participants in the safety analysis set. Adverse reactions occurred in 80 patients (51.28%, 158 cases) in the CKD-701 group and 77 patients (50.00%, 153 cases) in the reference group, with the difference between the two groups not being statistically significant (P = 0.821). Six cases of serious adverse reactions related to the drug occurred among five patients. Nevertheless, there was no significant difference between the groups (P = 0.683). Serious adverse events (SAEs) that occurred after administration were reported in 16 patients (16 cases; 10.26%) in the CKD-701 arm and in 15 patients (17 cases; 9.74%) in the reference arm. However, there was no statistically significant difference between the groups (P = 0.880). The SAEs included coronavirus infection, pneumonia, bile duct stone, contusion, cerebral infarction, endophthalmitis, arthritis, and lumbar spinal stenosis, among others. Serious adverse drug reactions (SADR) that occurred after administration of the investigational drug included six cases among five patients (1.61%), including acute cardiac failure, myocardial infarction in the CKD-701 arm, and glaucoma, endophthalmitis, and carotid artery stenosis in the reference arm. However, there no statistically significant difference was observed between the CKD-701 group (two cases in two patients, 1.28%) and the reference group (four cases in three patients, 1.95%) (P = 0.683).

Table 4. Adverse events recorded up to 12 months: Safety analysis set.
CKD-701
(n = 156)
Reference ranibizumab
(n = 154)
Total
(n = 310)
P-value[1]
Participants with at least one TEAE, n (%) [case]
 AE 80(51.28)[158] 77(50.00)[153] 157(50.65)[311] 0.82c
 ADR 28(17.95)[42] 20(12.99)[30] 48(15.48)[72] 0.23c
 SAE 16(10.26)[16] 15(9.74)[17] 31(10.00)[33] 0.88c
 SADR 2(1.28)[2] 3(1.95)[4] 5(1.61)[6] 0.68F
 AESI 6(3.85)[6] 8(5.19)[8] 14(4.52)[14] 0.57c
 Ocular AE at test eye 30(19.23)[47] 27(17.53)[36] 57(18.39)[83] 0.70c
 Ocular AE at fellow eye 14(8.97)[15] 10(6.49)[17] 24(7.74)[32] 0.41c
 Non-Ocular AE 52(33.33)[96] 54(35.06)[100] 106(34.19)[196] 0.75c
Ocular AE in > 1.5% patients
 Dry eye 10(6.41)[11] 5(3.25)[5] 15(4.84)[16] 0.19C
 Neovascular AMD 8(5.13)[8] 4(2.60)[5] 12(3.87)[13] 0.25C
 Vitreous floaters 5(3.21)[5] 1(0.65)[1] 6(1.94)[6] 0.21F
 Conjunctival hemorrhage 1(0.64)[1] 4(2.60)[6] 5(1.61)[7] 0.21F
 Retinal hemorrhage 3(1.92)[3] 2(1.30)[2] 5(1.61)[5] 1.00F
 Cataract 3(1.92)[3] 1(0.65)[1] 4(1.29)[4] 0.62F
 Eye pruritus 3(1.92)[3] - 3(0.97)[3] 0.25F
Non-ocular AE in >1.5% patients
 Nasopharyngitis 5(3.21)[6] 3(1.95)[4] 8(2.58)[10] 0.72F
 Pneumonia 1(0.64)[1] 3(1.95)[3] 4(1.29)[4] 0.379F
 Back pain 3(1.92)[3] 1(0.65)[1] 4(1.29)[4] 0.62F
 Gastritis 1(0.64)[1] 4(2.60)[4] 5(1.61)[5] 0.21F
 Urticaria 3(1.92)[4] 2(1.30)[2] 5(1.61)[6] 1.00F
 Hypertension 2(1.28)[2] 3(1.95)[3] 5(1.61)[5] 0.68F

[1] Test results for comparison between treatment groups (Chi-square test [C] or Fisher’s exact test [F]).

TEAE, treatment-related adverse events; AE, adverse event; ADR, adverse drug reaction; SAE, serious adverse event; SADR, serious adverse drug reaction; AESI, adverse event of special interest; AMD, age-related macular degeneration.

Discussion

This study demonstrates the equivalence of the proposed CKD-701 product and the reference ranibizumab in terms of efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity in patients with nAMD when administered every month for the first 3 months (loading phase) followed by PRN treatment for 9 months. The difference in the proportion of patients who had 15 letters of vision loss between treatment arms, which was the primary endpoint, was 0.66% (95% confidence interval: -3.63–2.32) and met the pre-set equivalence range (+-11.5%). In addition, the secondary endpoints such as the changes in BCVA and CRT at 3, 6, and 12 months and the proportion of patients without intraretinal or subretinal fluid demonstrated that the treatment efficacy of CKD-701 was similar to that of the reference ranibizumab.

This prospective randomized clinical trial used a PRN dosing regimen rather than fixed dosing. The patients in this study received three loading injections, and additional injections were administered as needed. The PRN regimen used in this study was the standard of care when the study was initiated. The results showed that the PRN regimen was excellent, without visual or anatomic fluctuations. The PRN regimen in this study eventually reduced the number of injections by approximately 1.5. In addition, the PRN protocol has the advantage of being able to simultaneously compare the efficacy and durability of anti-VEGF products. This study may provide more strong evidence of similarity for CKD-701 compared to reference product than clinical trial based on fixed dosing.

In terms of safety, most of the adverse reactions reported during CKD-701 administration were similar to those reported in a previous clinical trial of ranibizumab, and the difference in the incidence of adverse reactions between the treatment groups was not significant. Both Cmax and AUClast of the test and reference groups were similar, and other parameters, including apparent clearance, were comparable. Compared to the PK data from previous clinical studies, similar PK profiles of intravitreal ranibizumab injection were observed in the current study. Considering the range of serum ranibizumab after intravitreal ranibizumab injection, systemic exposure to intravitreal ranibizumab was negligible. Immunogenicity analysis also showed that the incidence of neutralizing antibodies was not significantly different between the administration groups across all time points.

Currently, research on biosimilars for retinal diseases are being actively conducted [11]. Among them, ranibizumab biosimilars have already received national approval and are being used in patients [16,17]. For biosimilars other than ranibizumab, the results of a phase 3 study have been recently published and are expected to be used in the near future [12,13]. There are few reports about ophthalmic biosimilars experience in the real world; hence, there is limited information on whether biosimilars may cause unexpected and rare side effects, especially after intravitreal injections. For example, sterile intraocular inflammation, which is reportedly associated with the manufacturing process of the ranibizumab biosimilar, has also been documented after market approval. However, evidence acquired over several years of clinical experience has indicated that biosimilars are as safe and effective in their approved indications as other biological drugs. In a recent study, Sharma et al. reviewed charts of treatment-naïve patients with nAMD who have received a ranibizumab biosimilar (Razumab, Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd, India), which was approved in 2015 [17]. They reported that none of the patients had ocular or systemic adverse events, including clinical signs of immunogenicity. In other studies, no additional safety issues were reported [18,19] To date, there are no published results supporting the hypothesis that intravitreal injection of a biosimilar may cause unexpected immunological adverse reactions.

In general, patients with nAMD require repetitive anti-VEGF injections to achieve better outcomes. However, the relatively high price of original biologics may limit the affordability of this treatment. By contrast, ranibizumab biosimilars, including the current study drug, can expand accessibility to anti-VEGF treatment and improve eventual treatment outcomes in the context of public ophthalmic healthcare. The development of biosimilars is expected to lower the cost of treatment for retinal disease through competition with the original drugs [20]. It has also been suggested that whether the introduction of a biosimilar could lower the cost of treating nAMD depends on off-label bevacizumab [13,21]. Sheth et al. reported that a third of Indian vitreoretinal specialists believe that the price of the ranibizumab biosimilar is a reasonable replacement for off-label bevacizumab in India [22]. It was also shown that a ranibizumab biosimilar (Razumab) rapidly grew its user base [21]. Although the present study was a multicenter study, it was conducted in only one country (South Korea), which may limit the applicability of the study results to patients with different ethnic backgrounds. In addition, since the type of nAMD and the genetic background of the participants were similar between groups, there may have been less variation in treatment outcomes. However, treatment outcomes with reference ranibizumab were not significantly different between patients of different ethnic backgrounds, suggesting that there would be little difference in treatment outcomes across countries [23].

In conclusion, the biosimilar CKD-701 had comparable efficacy and safety profiles to that of the reference ranibizumab, as evident from the efficacy variables analyzed between the treatment arms. Pro re nata dosing regimen can stabilize wet AMD activity as well as reducing treatment burden. Therefore, based on this comparability, it is proposed that the indigenous ranibizumab biosimilar may be considered as a viable alternative to the reference innovator product in patients with nAMD.

Supporting information

S1 Checklist

(DOC)

S1 File. Protocol file of this clinical trial.

(PDF)

S2 File. Minimal study data.

This file contains data to reach the conclusion of this study.

(ZIP)

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the investigators who contributed to the generation of the study data: Dr. Dae Young Lee, Dr. Young-Hoon Park, Dr. Sung Pyo Park, Dr. Jae Pil Shin, Dr. Seung-Young Yu, Dr. Yu Cheol Kim, Dr. Cheol Min Yun, Dr. Yong Sung You, Dr. Yun-Young Kim, Dr. Se Woong Kang, Dr. Joo Yong Lee, Dr. JuYeong Shin, Dr. Sung Jin Lee, Dr. Kihwang Lee, Dr. Min Sagong, Dr. Hyun Woong Kim, Dr. Hee Seung Chin, Dr. Jin Gu Jeong, Dr. Jung Yeul Kim, Dr. Joonhong Sohn, Dr. Kayoung Yi, Dr. Kang Yeun Pak, and Dr. IkSoo Byon.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.

Funding Statement

The study was funded by the sponsor, CKD. Ltd (Chong Kun Dang). Study design, collection and analysis of data were performed by the respective groups of the sponsor. Korean Association of Retinal Degeneration also funded this study and participated as image reading center (Seoul Reading Center). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Wong WL, Su X, Li X, Cheung CMG, Klein R, Cheng CY, et al. Global prevalence of age-related macular degeneration and disease burden projection for 2020 and 2040: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Glob Heal. 2014;2. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(13)70145-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Park SJ, Kwon K, Choi N-K, Park KH, Woo SJ. Prevalence and Incidence of Exudative Age-Related Macular Degeneration in South Korea. Ophthalmology. 2015;122: 2063–2070.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2015.06.018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Lim LS, Mitchell P, Seddon JM, Holz FG, Wong TY. Age-related macular degeneration. Lancet (London, England). 2012;379: 1728–1738. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60282-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Mitchell P, Liew G, Gopinath B, Wong TY. Age-related macular degeneration. Lancet (London, England). 2018;392: 1147–1159. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31550-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Pham B, Thomas SM, Lillie E, Lee T, Hamid J, Richter T, et al. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatment for retinal conditions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2019;9. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-022031 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Shalchi Z, Mahroo O, Bunce C, Mitry D. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor for macular oedema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion. Cochrane database Syst Rev. 2020;7. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009510.pub3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Schmidt-Erfurth U, Garcia-Arumi J, Bandello F, Berg K, Chakravarthy U, Gerendas BS, et al. Guidelines for the Management of Diabetic Macular Edema by the European Society of Retina Specialists (EURETINA). Ophthalmologica. 2017;237: 185–222. doi: 10.1159/000458539 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Chopra R, Preston GC, Keenan TDL, Mulholland P, Patel PJ, Balaskas K, et al. Intravitreal injections: past trends and future projections within a UK tertiary hospital. Eye (Lond). 2021. [cited 30 Nov 2021]. doi: 10.1038/s41433-021-01646-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Derbyshire M, Shina S. Patent expiry dates for biologicals: 2018 update. GaBI J. 2019;8: 24–31. doi: 10.5639/GABIJ.2019.0801.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Desideri LF, Cutolo CA, Traverso CE, Nicolò M. Razumab—the role of biosimilars for the treatment of retinal diseases. Drugs Today (Barc). 2021;57: 499–505. doi: 10.1358/DOT.2021.57.8.3284618 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Sharma A, Kumar N, Parachuri N, Bandello F, Kuppermann BD, Loewenstein A. Biosimilars for Retinal Diseases: An Update. Am J Ophthalmol. 2021;224: 36–42. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2020.11.017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Woo SJ, Veith M, Hamouz J, Ernest J, Zalewski D, Studnička J, et al. Efficacy and Safety of a Proposed Ranibizumab Biosimilar Product vs a Reference Ranibizumab Product for Patients with Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2021;139: 68–76. doi: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2020.5053 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Holz FG, Oleksy P, Ricci F, Kaiser PK, Kiefer J, Schmitz-Valckenberg S. Efficacy and Safety of Biosimilar FYB201 Compared with Ranibizumab in Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration. Ophthalmology. 2021. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2021.04.031 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Gámez-Belmonte R, Hernández-Chirlaque C, Arredondo-Amador M, Aranda CJ, González R, Martínez-Augustin O, et al. Biosimilars: Concepts and controversies. Pharmacol Res. 2018;133: 251–264. doi: 10.1016/j.phrs.2018.01.024 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Ranibizumab FDA Statistical Review. In: Statistical Review and Evaluation [Internet]. 2005 p. BLA/Serial Number 125156. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/2006/125156s0000_Lucentis_StatR.pdf.
  • 16.Sharma A, Kumar N, Parachuri N, Bandello F, Kuppermann BD, Loewenstein A. Ranibizumab Biosimilar (Razumab) vs Innovator Ranibizumab (Lucentis) in neovascular age-related macular degeneration (n-AMD)- efficacy and safety (BIRA study). Eye (Lond). 2021. [cited 30 Nov 2021]. doi: 10.1038/S41433-021-01616-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Sharma S, Gupta V, Maiti A, Natesh S, Saxena S, Dave V, et al. Safety and efficacy of Razumab (world’s first biosimilar ranibizumab) in wet age-related macular degeneration: a post-marketing, prospective ASSET study. Int J Retin Vitr. 2021;7. doi: 10.1186/S40942-021-00293-W [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Sharma S, Anandkumar MB, Jain S, Murthy H, Murlidhar NS, Hirawat RS, et al. A Multicenter, Retrospective Study (RE-ENACT 2) on Razumab (World’s First Biosimilar Ranibizumab) in Retinal Vein Occlusion. Ophthalmol Ther. 2020;9: 625–639. doi: 10.1007/S40123-020-00277-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Sharma S, Khan M, Chaturvedi A. A Multicenter, Retrospective Study (RE-ENACT 2) on the Use of Razumab (World’s First Biosimilar Ranibizumab) in Wet Age-Related Macular Degeneration. Ophthalmol Ther. 2020;9: 103–114. doi: 10.1007/S40123-019-00228-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Smolen JS, Goncalves J, Quinn M, Benedetti F, Lee JY. Era of biosimilars in rheumatology: reshaping the healthcare environment. RMD open. 2019;5. doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2019-000900 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Sharma A, Reddy P, Kuppermann BD, Bandello F, Lowenstein A. Biosimilars in ophthalmology: “Is there a big change on the horizon?” Clin Ophthalmol. 2018;12: 2137–2143. doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S180393 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Sheth JU, Stewart MW, Khatri M, Gupta SR, Chawla S, Rajendran A, et al. Changing trends in the use of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) biosimilars: Insights from the Vitreoretinal Society of India Biosimilars of Anti-VEGF Survey. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2021;69: 352–356. doi: 10.4103/ijo.IJO_2703_20 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Al-Moujahed A, Vail D, Do DV. Racial Differences in Anti-VEGF Intravitreal Injections Among Commercially Insured Beneficiaries. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina. 2021;52: 208–217. doi: 10.3928/23258160-20210330-05 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Demetrios G Vavvas

21 Jun 2022

PONE-D-21-38254Efficacy and safety of a new ranibizumab biosimilar CKD-701 using a pro re nata treatment regimen in neovascular age-related macular degeneration: a phase 3 randomized clinical trialPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Yu,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 05 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Demetrios G. Vavvas

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf.

2. Thank you for submitting your clinical trial to PLOS ONE and for providing the name of the registry and the registration number. The information in the registry entry suggests that your trial was registered after patient recruitment began. PLOS ONE strongly encourages authors to register all trials before recruiting the first participant in a study.

As per the journal’s editorial policy, please include in the Methods section of your paper:

a) your reasons for your delay in registering this study (after enrolment of participants started);

b) confirmation that all related trials are registered by stating: “The authors confirm that all ongoing and related trials for this drug/intervention are registered”.

3. We note that the original protocol file you uploaded contains a confidentiality notice indicating that the protocol may not be shared publicly or be published. Please note, however, that the PLOS Editorial Policy requires that the original protocol be published alongside your manuscript in the event of acceptance. Please note that should your paper be accepted, all content including the protocol will be published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license, which means that it will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution.

Therefore, we ask that you please seek permission from the study sponsor or body imposing the restriction on sharing this document to publish this protocol under CC BY 4.0 if your work is accepted. We kindly ask that you upload a formal statement signed by an institutional representative clarifying whether you will be able to comply with this policy. Additionally, please upload a clean copy of the protocol with the confidentiality notice (and any copyrighted institutional logos or signatures) removed.

4. We note that the original protocol that you have uploaded as a Supporting Information file contains an institutional logo. As this logo is likely copyrighted, we ask that you please remove it from this file and upload an updated version upon resubmission.

5. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“The study was funded by the sponsor, CKD. Ltd (Chong Kun Dang). Study design, collection and analysis of data were performed by the respective groups of the sponsor.

Korean Association of Retinal Degeneration also funded this study and participated as image reading center (Seoul Reading Center).”

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: ""The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.""

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

6. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

7. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

First, my apologies for taking some more time than usual due to my personal illness.

Both reviewers found this study rather well done and have some suggestions to make it more clear.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thank you for submitting this interesting work to PLOS ONE.

This is overall a well-designed study on investigating the efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of the CKD-701 biosimilar and a nicely written manuscript.

Here are my comments and suggestions.

In the Methods section you mention the “key exclusion criteria”. Are they any additional ones that were either applied to the study eye or the fellow eye such as presence of other concurrent non-retinal pathologies? Also, any systemic diseases or medications? If so, I would highly suggest you include those as well (supplemental material).

Regarding the PRN injection criteria, I would recommend you comment on whether all of these or any combination or even only one criterium could be met in order to proceed with the injection.

Was angiography (FA or ICGA) also performed at other points or only at baseline?

What about the patients who lost >15 letters?

Did you perform a subanalysis on the fellow eyes?

Thank you.

Reviewer #2: Abstract: line 23. The 3 months compared to baseline - when is baseline relative to the initial 3-month loading intraocular injections, and when is the 3 months? Is it before the PRN dosing? This is a little unclear at the moment.

lines 28, 30, 32, 34, 181, 186, etc: p-values need only be to 2 decimal places at this value.

Introduction: line 46: what is "wet" AMD?

line 66 - no need for a "," after "Although, ".

Material and methods

The primary endpoint is whether the patient lost fewer than 15 letters of visual acuity at 3 months compared to the baseline value.

I presume this is the quantity used in the sample size justification in line 137-139, but that doesn't seem to be the situation. What is actually the rate of 30% difference between the ranibizumab and placebo group? It is not currently clear why this sample size was determined - perhaps the rates in the groups as well as the difference?

(is there some confusion with participants who lost<15 letters and participants who gain>= 15 letters?)

line 192: after first administration?

table 2,3,4: p-values needn't be to 4 decimal places. 2 would be satisfactory.

Figures refer to the drug as Lucentis - this is not in the text anywhere - ensure there is no ambiguity as to whether these figures are using the same treatment as the text in the study.

Was any consideration given to fitting mixed models to the data to account for the differing time points among the same patients in the models? This could provide an average treatment effect for the difference between treatment arms over time - rather than just the 3 month after study entry timepoint.

In general the time points could refer to time since randomisation to reduce uncertainty regarding when the timepjoint was.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2022 Nov 14;17(11):e0275611. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0275611.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


13 Aug 2022

Reviewer #1: Thank you for submitting this interesting work to PLOS ONE.

This is overall a well-designed study on investigating the efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of the CKD-701 biosimilar and a nicely written manuscript.

Here are my comments and suggestions.

1. In the Methods section you mention the “key exclusion criteria”. Are they any additional ones that were either applied to the study eye or the fellow eye such as presence of other concurrent non-retinal pathologies? Also, any systemic diseases or medications? If so, I would highly suggest you include those as well (supplemental material).

Response: We appreciate your review and comments. We excluded patients having ocular disease other than AMD, systemic infection and taking systemic medication which can result in retinal adverse events. Detailed inclusion and exclusion criteria are described in supplementary protocol. (Page 5 line 99 and Supporting file (S1 file) page 4)

2. Regarding the PRN injection criteria, I would recommend you comment on whether all of these or any combination or even only one criterium could be met in order to proceed with the injection.

Response: Clinical trial drug was re-administered when any one of the PRN administration criteria were met. We corrected the PRN treatment protocol in the manuscript clearly. (Page 6 line 124)

3. Was angiography (FA or ICGA) also performed at other points or only at baseline?

Response: Fluorescein angiography was also performed at the end of the study.

4. What about the patients who lost >15 letters?

Response: We added this data, who lost more than 15 letters, in the Table 2.

5. Did you perform a subanalysis on the fellow eyes?

Response: Thank you for your comment. We are preparing the post hoc analysis about this study data including fellow eye characteristics in next publication.

Reviewer #2:

1. Abstract: line 23. The 3 months compared to baseline - when is baseline relative to the initial 3-month loading intraocular injections, and when is the 3 months? Is it before the PRN dosing? This is a little unclear at the moment.

Response: I appreciate your comment. We agree with your opinion that the description is unclear. The secondary outcome time point was 3 months after the baseline visit, one month after last loading injection and before PRN dosing. We corrected the description more clearly. (Page 2 28)

2. lines 28, 30, 32, 34, 181, 186, etc: p-values need only be to 2 decimal places at this value.

Response: We corrected the p-values to be 2 decimal. Thank you for your comment

3. Introduction: line 46: what is "wet" AMD?

Response: Thank you for your comment. We replaced ‘wet AMD’ to neovascular AMD.

4. line 66 - no need for a "," after "Although, ".

Response: We deleted the comma. Thank you for kind comment.

5.

Material and methods

The primary endpoint is whether the patient lost fewer than 15 letters of visual acuity at 3 months compared to the baseline value.

I presume this is the quantity used in the sample size justification in line 137-139, but that doesn't seem to be the situation. What is actually the rate of 30% difference between the ranibizumab and placebo group? It is not currently clear why this sample size was determined - perhaps the rates in the groups as well as the difference?

(is there some confusion with participants who lost<15 letters and participants who gain>= 15 letters?)

Response: I appreciate your comment. In pivotal study of Ranibizumab for wetAMD, MARINA study, proportion of patients who lost fewer than 15 letters were 94.6% in 0.5 mg ranibizumab and 62.2% in sham injection at 12 months. Difference of proportion was more than 30% in this pivotal study. Our primary outcome was measured at 3 months because drug response is most sensitive at this time and the improvement of vision maintained through 1 year. We corrected the reference as MARINA study from ANCHOR study.(Reference 15, Page 7 line 149)

6. line 192: after first administration?

Response: Thank you for your comment. The expression, ‘after first administration’, means after the first intravitreal injection because the first injection was performed on the day of randomization. We corrected this description not to make confusion. (Page 10 line 203)

7. table 2,3,4: p-values needn't be to 4 decimal places. 2 would be satisfactory.

Response: We corrected the p-values to 2-decimal value.

8. Figures refer to the drug as Lucentis - this is not in the text anywhere - ensure there is no ambiguity as to whether these figures are using the same treatment as the text in the study.

Thank you for your comment. I understand your confusion. Pharmacokinetics sample was performed in 12 patients of each CKD-701 (study drug) and Ranibizumab (reference drug). We replaced Lucentis to Ranibizumab to clarify.

9. Was any consideration given to fitting mixed models to the data to account for the differing time points among the same patients in the models? This could provide an average treatment effect for the difference between treatment arms over time - rather than just the 3 month after study entry timepoint.

In general the time points could refer to time since randomisation to reduce uncertainty regarding when the time point was.

Response: Thank you for your comment. We agree with you. We added the description regarding the baseline time point. (Page 6 line 129)

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx.doc

Decision Letter 1

Demetrios G Vavvas

4 Sep 2022

PONE-D-21-38254R1Efficacy and safety of a new ranibizumab biosimilar CKD-701 using a pro re nata treatment regimen in neovascular age-related macular degeneration: a phase 3 randomized clinical trialPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Yu,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

 There is one more minor change that needs to be addressed before final acceptance

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 19 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Demetrios G. Vavvas

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thank you for submitting your revised manuscript and for adequately addressing all main questions and comments. This is an interesting study and has been a great improvement in the quality of the manuscript. Thank you.

Reviewer #2: In the track changed version of the manuscript line 154.

I think some confusion has crept in with the sample size justification. Previously the statistic was 30% (95%CI: 23-37%). This was indicating that the estimate of the difference between two groups was 30%, with 95% confidence that the true estimate is between 23% and 37%. This is OK.

I think now the authors were intending to state that the separate groups had rates of 94.6% and 62.2% - and the difference was 32%. This is not currently what the sentence says - the 95% CI is incorrect. Please address prior to acceptance of manuscript.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2022 Nov 14;17(11):e0275611. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0275611.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


17 Sep 2022

Reviewer #2: In the track changed version of the manuscript line 154.

I think some confusion has crept in with the sample size justification. Previously the statistic was 30% (95%CI: 23-37%). This was indicating that the estimate of the difference between two groups was 30%, with 95% confidence that the true estimate is between 23% and 37%. This is OK.

I think now the authors were intending to state that the separate groups had rates of 94.6% and 62.2% - and the difference was 32%. This is not currently what the sentence says - the 95% CI is incorrect. Please address prior to acceptance of manuscript.

Thank you for pointy comment. I totally agree with you on this issue. Statistician of the study team referenced the value in the official document from U.S. FDA (Statistical Review and Evaluation Clinical Studies BLA/Serial Number 125156, url: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/2006/125156s0000_Lucentis_StatR.pdf) instead of publication in NEJM. This document is about pivotal study “Ranibizumab for Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration”, also called MARINA study. This document can be downloaded freely. Table 5 of this document described that Loss of <15 letters difference (95% CI) is 30% (23, 37%). This confusion might not have been made if I had referenced this document on the first submission. I replaced the reference correctly at this time. (Page 7 Line 147)

Attachment

Submitted filename: PlosOne_revision_response2.docx

Decision Letter 2

Demetrios G Vavvas

20 Sep 2022

Efficacy and safety of a new ranibizumab biosimilar CKD-701 using a pro re nata treatment regimen in neovascular age-related macular degeneration: a phase 3 randomized clinical trial

PONE-D-21-38254R2

Dear Dr. Yu,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Demetrios G. Vavvas

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Demetrios G Vavvas

3 Nov 2022

PONE-D-21-38254R2

Efficacy and safety of a new ranibizumab biosimilar CKD-701 using a pro re nata treatment regimen in neovascular age-related macular degeneration: a phase 3 randomized clinical trial

Dear Dr. Yu:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Prof. Demetrios G. Vavvas

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Checklist

    (DOC)

    S1 File. Protocol file of this clinical trial.

    (PDF)

    S2 File. Minimal study data.

    This file contains data to reach the conclusion of this study.

    (ZIP)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx.doc

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PlosOne_revision_response2.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES