ArticlePharmacology research & perspectives2023
Pooled analysis of three pharmacokinetic studies comparing biosimilar MB02 and reference bevacizumab.
Article in Pharmacology research & perspectives, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled analysis of three pharmacokinetic studies comparing biosimilar MB02 and reference bevacizumab.Pharmacology research & perspectives · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThe aim of this study was to add robustness and provide further evidence on the bioequivalence, safety and immunogenicity between MB02 and reference bevacizumab. No similar study has been performed before with a biosimilar monoclonal antibody.
methodsPopulation analysis by pooling data from three independent pharmacokinetic (PK) studies was performed. The studies had a single-dose, double-blind, three-arm, parallel-group design and two studies, MB02-A-02-17 and MB02-A-05-18, compared MB02 to EU- and US-bevacizumab in Caucasian subjects, while study MB02-A-04-18 compared MB02 and EU-bevacizumab in Japanese participants. Primary endpoints included maximum observed serum concentration (C
resultsPoint estimates and 90% confidence intervals for the geometric mean ratios of primary PK parameters for MB02, EU- and US-bevacizumab were all contained within the predefined bioequivalence margins (80%-125%) for all pairwise comparisons. The same results for all pairwise comparisons were observed when protein-corrected primary PK parameters were analyzed. Safety and immunogenicity were similar between MB02 and the EU- and US-reference bevacizumab in healthy subjects.
conclusionsThis pooled analysis of three comparable PK studies further supports the bioequivalence of biosimilar MB02 to EU- and US-reference bevacizumab. No clinically meaningful differences in safety or immunogenicity were observed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.