Trial reportFrontiers in immunology2024
Comparative immunogenicity assessment of biosimilar natalizumab to its reference medicine: a matching immunogenicity profile.
Trial report in Frontiers in immunology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- From analytical similarity to clinical confidence: how regulatory evolution ensures comparable immunogenicity in streamlined biosimilar development.Bioanalysis · 2026Review
- Serum drug levels and JCV assay discrepancies after switching from originator to biosimilar natalizumab.BMJ neurology open · 2026Article
- Demyelination and Remyelination: General Principles.Advances in neurobiology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Biosimilar natalizumab (biosim-NTZ) is the first biosimilar monoclonal antibody of reference natalizumab (ref-NTZ) for treatment of relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis (MS). Within the totality of evidence for demonstration of biosimilarity, immunogenicity assessments were performed in healthy subjects and patients with relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS) to confirm a matching immunogenicity profile between biosim-NTZ and ref-NTZ. Methods: Immunogenicity of biosim-NTZ versus ref-NTZ was evaluated in two pivotal clinical studies. In a comparative efficacy and safety study, patients with RRMS (n=264) received monthly infusions of biosim-NTZ/EU-ref-NTZ over 48 weeks. The primary endpoint period was Week 0 to Week 24. In a separate, comparative pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) study, healthy subjects (n=450) received a single dose of biosim-NTZ, US-ref-NTZ or EU-ref-NTZ prior to an 85-day follow-up. In both studies, state-of-the-art, highly sensitive and drug tolerant bioanalytical assays were used to identify the proportion of participants with anti-drug antibodies (ADA) and neutralizing antibodies (NAb) against natalizumab over time. Results: In the comparative efficacy and safety study, biosim-NTZ and EU-ref-NTZ demonstrated similar incidences of overall ADA (79.4% vs 73.7%, respectively) and NAb (68.7% vs 66.2%, respectively) at Week 24. ADA titers over time were also concordant throughout the study period. Switching treatment from EU-ref-NTZ to biosim-NTZ had no impact on treatment-related ADA/NAb or clinical responses. Likewise, the single-dose PK/PD study reported matching overall incidence of ADA between treatment groups and matching ADA titer profiles over time. Conclusion: The immunogenicity profile of biosim-NTZ was confirmed to match that of ref-NTZ in healthy subjects and patients with RRMS by applying highly sensitive methods.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.