2013 年美国仿制药市场发展动态（Ⅰ）

汤森路透Newport PremiumTM 数据库收集来自全球仿制药市场的可靠信息，为制造企业在寻找评估新产品项目，以及制定企业发展战略的过程中提供权威的分析数据。汤森路透借助该数据库提供的战略情报和竞争性分析信息，为美国仿制药行业提供季度报告。本期报告介绍了2013 年第1 季度在美国仿制药市场上声名鹊起的几家公司，并从总体上对仿制药市场的趋势及统计结果进行了分析。     

生物药和生物仿制药三维构像的指纹化分析

云桥生物技术公司最近开发的蛋白质构象矩阵ELISA技术(PCA-ELISA)能从分子水平上系统、灵敏并且快速的分析蛋白质药物的三维构象。最近美国的《医疗保健法》需确认为仿制药的审批和商业化指明了道路,届时将引起目前已上市的主要的生物药间的激烈竞争。如何保持生物仿制药与原创药的高度相似是目前生物制药产业所面临的巨大挑战,而争论的焦点集中在仿制药与原创     

我国仿制药人体生物等效性临床试验研究室建设的现状与发展路径

我国开展仿制药一致性评价最主要的困难之一是临床试验资源不足,解决办法是考虑将生物等效性临床试验资格认定调整为备案 管理。因此,对备案的医疗机构建设生物等效性试验研究室是一个潜在的挑战。文章分析了国内当前具备生物等效性 / I期临床资质的 机构、分布、承担项目能力及生物等效性临床试验机构、药物分析实验室和合同研究组织之间的关系等,对仿制药生物等效性临床试验 研究室的建设内容和规模展开讨论,供业内及监管部门参考。     

生物仿制药现状与发展趋势分析

生物仿制药是指原研生物药物在专利保护到期后,其他企业利用已有的数据进行简化生产并被批准上市的、与原研药物在结构和质量上非常相似、具有相当的生物活性和生物等效性的生物制药产品。相比于化学药,生物药通常分子量大且结构复杂,因而生物药的仿制往往难度较大,是系统工程,涉及的靶点选择、工程菌的构建、培养基的筛选、大规模培养体系的建立、分离纯化体系的建立、药物后修饰等诸多环节均有较高的技术壁垒;加上生物仿制药在审批过程中不仅需要临床Ⅰ期的药效和药代动力学试验来证明生物等效性外,还需要临床Ⅲ期试验来证明生物仿制药大范围使用后的疗效、不良反应、药物间的相互作用等,因此生物仿制药的研发成本较化学仿制药高,研发周期和审批周期也相对较长。     

中国生物仿制药发展分析

近几年,生物仿制药研发热潮逐渐兴起,本文简要综述了生物仿制药的市场情况,我国生物仿制药发展现状及相关的法律法规。     

经皮给药系统产业化开发的关键问题探讨

以经皮给药系统的开发及产业化为主体思路,在对经皮给药系统发展现状认识的基础上,重点对经皮给药产品研发中的吸收模型 及体内外相关性评价研究、产业化设备、国内外研发模式等进行初步探讨,分析经皮给药系统开发中存在的问题和挑战并提出相应的解 决方案,以期为今后国内经皮给药制剂的发展提供思路。     

发展菜籽油制备生物柴油产业的一种有效对策

菜籽油是生产生物柴油的主要原料之一,目前用菜籽油生产生物柴油的主要瓶颈是原料成本较高,一般占到总生产成本的75%左右。在介绍国内外菜籽油制备生物柴油产业发展现状和存在的主要问题的基础上,提出了利用现有冬闲田生产高芥酸油菜籽,以高芥酸菜籽油为原料联产制备生物柴油、芥酸及其系列衍生产品和甘油、甾醇类化合物等高值副产品的对策,并从产品用途与市场需求潜力、企业经济效益、生产技术和条件、原料来源等几方面分析了这一发展对策的可行性。该对策的实施,将实现我国菜籽油制备生物柴油产业的兴起和可持续发展,提高生物柴油产品品质,带动我国生物化工和其它诸多行业的共同发展,为我国社会主义新农村建设作出贡献。     

企业生物多样性信息披露: 调查、分析与建议

近年来我国每年发布《企业社会责任报告》近2,000份, 有相当比例包含生物多样性内容。但长期以来, 披露内容的实质性与可信度严重不足, 亟需引导、规范和审核。本文探讨建立我国企业生物多样性信息公开透明机制, 旨在解决两个主要问题: 一是风险规避, 二是资源调动。本文根据《生物多样性公约》相关规定, 首先梳理企业生物多样性信息披露国内外进展, 指出存在内容碎片化, 科学指标缺失, 结果难以比较, 投入产出、同业及历史数据缺乏比对分析等不足。其次, 采用5个生物多样性指标, 进一步对《企业社会责任报告评估指数》研究发现: 不同行业差异化明显、金融机构催化作用凸显、重视纳入制度战略框架、报告内容同质化严重、定性描述多于定量分析、货币化核算方法缺失、资金投入信息披露保守、未经第三方独立审核等特点。最后, 提出提高企业透明度的4项建议: (1)加强顶层设计纳入, (2)改进环境政策指引, (3)优化金融激励措施, (4)强化公司能力建设。这将为政府和金融部门量化生态影响, 管控投资风险, 实施扩大生物多样性融资决策提供支持。     

氯雷他定片剂一致性评价研究方法

为改善我国部分仿制药质量与国际先进水平还存在一定差距的现状,《国家药品安全“十二五”规划》中明确提出了开展仿制药一 致性评价,全面提高仿制药质量的任务。氯雷他定片作为抗过敏药物的主要品种之一,需在 2018 年底前完成一致性评价。基于现有质量和 疗效一致性评价指导原则与相关研究报道,针对氯雷他定原料药的晶型研究、原辅料杂质的比较研究、片剂溶出曲线的比较方法以及生物 等效性试验研究等进行了总结和概括,并对有待解决的共性问题进行了讨论。     

生物技术药物的研究开发与产业化现状及前景

本综述了近年来国内外生物技术药物的研究、开发和产业化现状,讨论了我国医药生物技术产业存在的主要问题。提出中国医药生物技术产业发展应遵循自主开发与技术引进相结合及政府引导与市场机制相结合的原则,政府、企业和科技界应发挥各自不同的作用;展望了我国生物药物产业的发展方向和生物技术药物的市场前景。     

Biosimilars: a regulatory perspective from America

Biosimilars are protein products that are sufficiently similar to a biopharmaceutical already approved by a regulatory agency. Several biotechnology companies and generic drug manufacturers in Asia and Europe are developing biosimilars of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors and rituximab. A biosimilar etanercept is already being marketed in Colombia and China. In the US, several natural source products and recombinant proteins have been approved as generic drugs under Section 505(b)(2) of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. However, because the complexity of large biopharmaceuticals makes it difficult to demonstrate that a biosimilar is structurally identical to an already approved biopharmaceutical, this Act does not apply to biosimilars of large biopharmaceuticals. Section 7002 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, which is referred to as the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, amends Section 351 of the Public Health Service Act to create an abbreviated pathway that permits a biosimilar to be evaluated by comparing it with only a single reference biological product. This paper reviews the processes for approval of biosimilars in the US and the European Union and highlights recent changes in federal regulations governing the approval of biosimilars in the US.     

贝伐珠单抗生物类似药质量相似性评价探讨*

贝伐珠单抗是研发热度最高的生物类似药之一,在梳理国内23家贝伐珠单抗生物类似药厂家研发数据和原研厂家研究数据的基础上,结合目前国内外生物类似药相关指导原则的理念以及相关文献,从生物类似药相似性评价一般原则、贝伐珠单抗关键质量属性识别和相似性评价几个方面,对贝伐珠单抗生物类似药质量相似性的技术评价要点进行初步探讨。     

Waiving in vivo studies for monoclonal antibody biosimilar development: National and global challenges

Biosimilars are biological medicinal products that contain a version of the active substance of an already authorised original biological medicinal product (the innovator or reference product). The first approved biosimilar medicines were small proteins, and more recently biosimilar versions of innovator monoclonal antibody (mAb) drugs have entered development as patents on these more complex proteins expire. In September 2013, the first biosimilar mAb, infliximab, was authorised in Europe. In March 2015, the first biosimilar (Zarxio?, filgrastim-sndz, Sandoz) was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration; however, to date no mAb biosimilars have been approved in the US. There are currently major differences between how biosimilars are regulated in different parts of the world, leading to substantial variability in the amount of in vivo nonclinical toxicity testing required to support clinical development and marketing of biosimilars. There are approximately 30 national and international guidelines on biosimilar development and this number is growing. The European Union's guidance describes an approach that enables biosimilars to enter clinical trials based on robust in vitro data alone; in contrast, the World Health Organization's guidance is interpreted globally to mean in vivo toxicity studies are mandatory.

We reviewed our own experience working in the global regulatory environment, surveyed current practice, determined drivers for nonclinical in vivo studies with biosimilar mAbs and shared data on practice and study design for 25 marketed and as yet unmarketed biosimilar mAbs that have been in development in the past 5y. These data showed a variety of nonclinical in vivo approaches, and also demonstrated the practical challenges faced in obtaining regulatory approval for clinical trials based on in vitro data alone. The majority of reasons for carrying out nonclinical in vivo studies were not based on scientific rationale, and therefore the authors have made recommendations for a data-driven approach to the toxicological assessment of mAb biosimilars that minimises unnecessary use of animals and can be used across all regions of the world.     

Biosimilars: Challenges and path forward

Development of biosimilar proteins is the fastest growing sector in the biopharmaceutical industry, as patents for the top 10 best-selling biologics will expire within one decade. The world’s first biosimilar of infliximab, Remsima® (CT-P13) made by Celltrion, was approved by the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) of European Medicine Agency (EMA) in June 2013. This has ignited competition between related companies for prior occupation of the global market on blockbuster biologics. However, to achieve approval for biosimilars, developing companies face many hurdles in process development, manufacturing, analysis, clinical trials, and CMC (chemical, manufacturing and controls) documentation. Recent evolutionary progress in science, engineering, and process technology throughout the biopharmaceutical industry supports to show similarity between originator and biosimilar products. The totality of evidence has been able to demonstrate the quality, efficacy, and safety of biosimilars whereas a lack of interchangeability and international standards has to be addressed. Further understanding of the timing importance by regulatory agencies will be key to maximizing the value of biosimilars.     

Biosimilars: Key regulatory considerations and similarity assessment tools

A biosimilar drug is defined in the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidance document as a biopharmaceutical that is highly similar to an already licensed biologic product (referred to as the reference product) notwithstanding minor differences in clinically inactive components and for which there are no clinically meaningful differences in purity, potency, and safety between the two products. The development of biosimilars is a challenging, multistep process. Typically, the assessment of similarity involves comprehensive structural and functional characterization throughout the development of the biosimilar in an iterative manner and, if required by the local regulatory authority, an in vivo nonclinical evaluation, all conducted with direct comparison to the reference product. In addition, comparative clinical pharmacology studies are conducted with the reference product. The approval of biosimilars is highly regulated although varied across the globe in terms of nomenclature and the precise criteria for demonstrating similarity. Despite varied regulatory requirements, differences between the proposed biosimilar and the reference product must be supported by strong scientific evidence that these differences are not clinically meaningful. This review discusses the challenges faced by pharmaceutical companies in the development of biosimilars.     

Characterization and comparison of commercially available TNF receptor 2-Fc fusion protein products

Because of rapidly increasing market demand and rising cost pressure, the innovator of etanercept (Enbrel®) will inevitably face competition from biosimilar versions of the product. In this study, to elucidate the differences between the reference etanercept and its biosimilars, we characterized and compared the quality attributes of two commercially available, biosimilar TNF receptor 2-Fc fusion protein products. Biosimilar 1 showed high similarity to Enbrel® in critical quality attributes including peptide mapping, intact mass, charge variant, purity, glycosylation and bioactivity. In contrast, the intact mass and MS/MS analysis of biosimilar 2 revealed a mass difference indicative of a two amino acid residue variance in the heavy chain (Fc) sequences. Comprehensive glycosylation profiling confirmed that biosimilar 2 has significantly low sialylated N-oligosaccharides. Biosimilar 2 also displayed significant differences in charge attributes compared with the reference product. Interestingly, biosimilar 2 exhibited similar affinity and bioactivity levels compared with the reference product despite the obvious difference in primary structure and partial physiochemical properties. For a biosimilar development program, comparative analytical data can influence decisions about the type and amount of animal and clinical data needed to demonstrate biosimilarity. Because of the limited clinical experience with biosimilars at the time of their approval, a thorough knowledge surrounding biosimilars and a case-by-case approach are needed to ensure the appropriate use of these products.     

Characterization and comparison of commercially available TNF receptor 2-Fc fusion protein products

Because of rapidly increasing market demand and rising cost pressure, the innovator of etanercept (Enbrel®) will inevitably face competition from biosimilar versions of the product. In this study, to elucidate the differences between the reference etanercept and its biosimilars, we characterized and compared the quality attributes of two commercially available, biosimilar TNF receptor 2-Fc fusion protein products. Biosimilar 1 showed high similarity to Enbrel® in critical quality attributes including peptide mapping, intact mass, charge variant, purity, glycosylation and bioactivity. In contrast, the intact mass and MS/MS analysis of biosimilar 2 revealed a mass difference indicative of a two amino acid residue variance in the heavy chain (Fc) sequences. Comprehensive glycosylation profiling confirmed that biosimilar 2 has significantly low sialylated N-oligosaccharides. Biosimilar 2 also displayed significant differences in charge attributes compared with the reference product. Interestingly, biosimilar 2 exhibited similar affinity and bioactivity levels compared with the reference product despite the obvious difference in primary structure and partial physiochemical properties. For a biosimilar development program, comparative analytical data can influence decisions about the type and amount of animal and clinical data needed to demonstrate biosimilarity. Because of the limited clinical experience with biosimilars at the time of their approval, a thorough knowledge surrounding biosimilars and a case-by-case approach are needed to ensure the appropriate use of these products.     

Worldwide experience with biosimilar development

Limited access for high-quality biologics due to cost of treatment constitutes an unmet medical need in the United States (US) and other regions of the world. The term “biosimilar” is used to designate a follow-on biologic that meets extremely high standards for comparability or similarity to the originator biologic drug that is approved for use in the same indications. Use of biosimilar products has already decreased the cost of treatment in many regions of the world, and now a regulatory pathway for approval of these products has been established in the US. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) led the world with the regulatory concept of comparability, and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) was the first to apply this to biosimilars. Patents on the more complex biologics, especially monoclonal antibodies, are now beginning to expire and biosimilar versions of these important medicines are in development. The new Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act allows the FDA to approve biosimilars, but it also allows the FDA to lead on the formal designation of interchangeability of biosimilars with their reference products. The FDA’s approval of biosimilars is critical to facilitating patient access to high-quality biologic medicines, and will allow society to afford the truly innovative molecules currently in the global biopharmaceutical industry’s pipeline.