Evidence Hub

Comparison of pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, safety, and immunogenicity of a candidate biosimilar INTP23.1 with EU and US‑approved denosumab reference products in healthy adult men

Fenwick S, Parekh V, Shah N, Patel R, Kale P, Kolte S

Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology, 2026

234 participants

Abstract

Purpose: This Phase 1 study evaluated the pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD), immunogenicity, and safety of INTP23.1, a proposed denosumab biosimilar, compared with US- and EU-licensed reference denosumab (Xgeva®) in healthy male volunteers.

Methods: This randomized, double-blind, three-arm, 36 week, parallel-group trial (CTRI/2020/09/027619), assessed a single 35 mg subcutaneous dose of INTP23.1, Xgeva (US), or Xgeva (EU), administered in the upper arm. PK endpoints were statistically compared using geometric least-squares means (LSM) and 90% confidence intervals (CIs). PD markers were evaluated, immunogenicity and safety were assessed through validated assays, and adverse events (AEs) were monitored.

Results: A total of 234 healthy male volunteers were enrolled. Baseline demographics were similar across the three treatment sequence groups. PK equivalence was demonstrated, with all geometric LSM ratios and 90% CIs for maximum serum concentration, area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) from time zero to the last measurable concentration, and AUC from time zero to infinity falling within the predefined bioequivalence range of 80.00% to 125.00%. PD responses showed comparable suppression of C-terminal telopeptide (CTX) and procollagen type 1 N-terminal propeptide (P1NP) across treatment groups. Immunogenicity profiles were similar, with low anti-drug antibody incidence and no neutralizing antibodies detected. AEs were generally mild or moderate in intensity,…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 234 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free