Quality, safety and efficacy of follow-on biologics in Japan

Recently, WHO, EU, Japan and Canada have published guidelines on biosimilar/follow-on biologics. While there seems to be no significant difference in the general concept in these guidelines, the data to be submitted for product approval are partially different. Differences have been noted in the requirements for comparability studies on stability, prerequisites for reference product, or for the need of comparability exercise for determination of process-related impurities. In Japan, there have been many discussions about the amount and extent of data for approval of follow-on biologics. We try to clarify the scientific background and rational for regulatory pathway of biosimilar/follow-on biologics in Japan in comparison with the guidelines available from WHO, EU and Canada. In this article, we address and discuss the scientific background underlying these differences to facilitate the harmonization of follow-on biologic principles in the guidelines in future.     

Clinical programs in the development of similar biotherapeutic products: rationale and general principles

Similar biotherapeutic products (SBPs) or biosimilars are biologics developed by pharmaceutical manufacturers to match originator biologics that have been on the market for a long time and lost their exclusivity (patent and market protection). The recently issued WHO guidelines on evaluation of SBPs provide clear guidance for manufacturers and regulators on how to develop and gain approval for these products. The present contribution illustrates the rationale for and general principles of the clinical programs used in the development of SBPs, taking the example of the three biosimilar products developed and marketed in Europe by Sandoz, namely growth hormone (Omnitrope?, the first ever EU biosimilar approval), erythropoietin α (Binocrit?), and filgrastim (Zarzio?).     

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.     

Bioanalytical strategy used in development of pharmacokinetic (PK) methods that support biosimilar programs

The development of biosimilar products is expected to grow rapidly over the next five years as a large number of approved biologics reach patent expiry. The pathway to regulatory approval requires that similarity of the biosimilar to the reference product be demonstrated through physiochemical and structural characterization, as well as within in vivo studies that compare the safety and efficacy profiles of the products. To support nonclinical and clinical studies pharmacokinetic (PK) assays are required to measure the biosimilar and reference products with comparable precision and accuracy. The most optimal approach is to develop a single PK assay, using a single analytical standard, for quantitative measurement of the biosimilar and reference products in serum matrix. Use of a single PK assay for quantification of multiple products requires a scientifically sound testing strategy to evaluate bioanalytical comparability of the test products within the method, and provide a solid data package to support the conclusions. To meet these objectives, a comprehensive approach with scientific rigor was applied to the development and characterization of PK assays that are used in support of biosimilar programs. Herein we describe the bioanalytical strategy and testing paradigm that has been used across several programs to determine bioanalytical comparability of the biosimilar and reference products. Data from one program is presented, with statistical results demonstrating the biosimilar and reference products were bioanalytically equivalent within the method. The cumulative work has established a framework for future biosimilar PK assay development.     

Bioanalytical strategy used in development of pharmacokinetic (PK) methods that support biosimilar programs

The development of biosimilar products is expected to grow rapidly over the next five years as a large number of approved biologics reach patent expiry. The pathway to regulatory approval requires that similarity of the biosimilar to the reference product be demonstrated through physiochemical and structural characterization, as well as within in vivo studies that compare the safety and efficacy profiles of the products. To support nonclinical and clinical studies pharmacokinetic (PK) assays are required to measure the biosimilar and reference products with comparable precision and accuracy. The most optimal approach is to develop a single PK assay, using a single analytical standard, for quantitative measurement of the biosimilar and reference products in serum matrix. Use of a single PK assay for quantification of multiple products requires a scientifically sound testing strategy to evaluate bioanalytical comparability of the test products within the method, and provide a solid data package to support the conclusions. To meet these objectives, a comprehensive approach with scientific rigor was applied to the development and characterization of PK assays that are used in support of biosimilar programs. Herein we describe the bioanalytical strategy and testing paradigm that has been used across several programs to determine bioanalytical comparability of the biosimilar and reference products. Data from one program is presented, with statistical results demonstrating the biosimilar and reference products were bioanalytically equivalent within the method. The cumulative work has established a framework for future biosimilar PK assay development.     

Worldwide experience with biosimilar development

Limited access for high-quality biologics due to cost of treatment constitutes an unmet medical need in the 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 (BPCIA) allows the FDA to approve biosimilars and 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.Key words: monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), biosimilars, recombinant biopharmaceuticals     

Follow-on Biologics: A New Play for Big Pharma: Healthcare 2010

The U.S. pharmaceutical industry plays a vital role in shaping the face of American healthcare. As an industry rooted in innovation, its continued evolution is inherent. With major patent expirations looming and thin product pipelines, the industry now must consider new directions to maintain growth and stability. Follow-on biologics, derived from living organisms and marketed after the patent expiration of similar therapies, represent a growing opportunity for big pharmaceutical firms, as discussed during Yale’s Healthcare 2010 conference in April. Key characteristics of follow-on biologics make them a worthwhile investment for big pharma companies: They command high prices, will likely have fewer entrants than generics due to high barriers to entry, and play to the existing strengths of big pharma firms. With the recent healthcare legislation providing the way for consistent Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulation, the timing seems right to continue the push into this new and growing market.At a time when healthcare issues are on the mind of every American, it would serve us well to consider the future of one of the most influential players in the sector: pharmaceutical companies. National health expenditures for pharmaceutical products are hovering around 10 percent, meaning that one out of every 10 dollars that we, as a nation, spend on healthcare goes toward drugs. These drugs regulate our cholesterol levels, promote the growth of white blood cells in cancer patients, manage our restless leg syndrome, help us sleep better at night, and provide myriad other benefits to our health and well-being. Yet, for all the benefits that the pharmaceutical industry provides, it is also criticized by many for the expense of its products and the high profit margins that these products command. The growing popularity of biologics — treatments derived from living organisms, such as antibodies and interleukins — has particularly increased the price of drugs in the United States. The current price of the average biologic is more than 20 times that of a traditional, chemically synthesized small-molecule drug. There is a trade-off between high prices and innovative new therapies. Moreover, pharmaceutical companies themselves argue justifiably that prices account not only for the price of production, but also for the research and development (R&D) for that therapy as well as numerous others that did not make it all the way through the regulatory process and to the clinic.In recent years, we have witnessed the breakdown of the well-oiled innovation machinery of the traditional big pharma company. While R&D departments spent more and more (well over $1B per drug), they did not see promising results in the form of late-stage drug candidates [1]. Over time, this led to a strategic shift in portfolio management within big pharma companies toward an acquisition-heavy plan to build up their pipeline of drugs. In-house R&D projects were cut, and layoffs of scientific staff were rampant. This phenomenon continues, with 2009 bearing witness to the most mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical industry to date. Industry-wide consolidation aimed to find complementary development projects and synergies in manufacturing and emerging markets. What has been the effect of all of this? The answer is not as hopeful as the pharmaceutical industry would have liked. A giant “patent cliff” still persists, referring to a number of blockbuster drugs that will go off patent over the next two years and cause a dramatic decrease in sales for big pharma firms. Without a strong pipeline to fill in the valley with new product sales, big pharma companies have begun scrambling to find new ways to generate revenue.Meanwhile, the biotech industry’s foray into therapeutics has been a wild success story. From the 1980s to the present, biologics have reshaped the face of medicine in many disease areas. The spawn of highly innovative, nimble biotech firms, biologic drugs are large, complex molecules grown in living cells rather than synthesized chemically like small molecules. For example, Enbrel is a fusion protein that acts as a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor to stop inflammation. This drug is being widely prescribed for rheumatoid arthritis as well as psoriasis, among other indications, with sales last year reaching $5.9 billion, up 9.3 percent from 2008 [2]. Enbrel was first developed by Immunex and released in 1998. Immunex was acquired by a rival biotech firm, Amgen, in 2001 [3], and subsequent marketing of the drug in the United States was jointly undertaken by Amgen and Wyeth (now taken over by Pfizer in the mega-merger of 2009). Enbrel’s is the classic story of the modern biologic: a novel therapy developed at a small biotech firm and acquired or licensed up the food chain to feed bigger firms’ appetites for late-stage assets.Enbrel is by no means unique; there are many blockbuster biologics on the market. Like Enbrel, many of them will reach the end of their patent life soon. Enbrel’s patent expiration is set for 2012, at which time it will be exposed to potential competition from generic versions. Therefore, though there are many novel biologics therapies that can provide new ways of treating patients, there is also a huge opportunity for generic versions of biologics that did not exist even one decade ago. This opportunity is hard to quantify, but one recent estimate shows that biologics responsible for $20B in annual sales will go off patent by 2015 [4]. Unsurprisingly, small-molecule generics firms are flocking to this space. Teva, the world’s largest generics manufacturer, has partnered with the Lonza Group to make and sell so-called follow-on biologics. These treatments are similar, but not identical, to preceding biologics whose patents expired. Meanwhile, Novartis’s generics arm, Sandoz, has increased capacity in biomanufacturing to ramp up its efforts. Big pharma itself has made motions of interest in the business of follow-on biologics, as witnessed by the dedicated division of Merck, BioVentures, established in late 2008 for the development of follow-on biologics. Interestingly, even Pfizer is testing a follow-on version of Enbrel, now in phase 2 clinical trials [5]. With a big market opportunity and a number of firms interested, follow-on biologics will surely play an important role in shaping the future of the pharma industry.For large pharmaceutical firms, what is needed is a way to diversify and mitigate risk, a way to supplement their rollercoaster sales figures year after year. Follow-on biologics may be a smart play for big pharma companies. Like their generic cousins, biologics manufacturing has strong economies of scale that big pharma firms can leverage. But unlike generics, there are higher barriers to entry because of the technical challenges of manufacturing biologics and the necessary clinical proofs of equivalency. Pharmaceutical companies already are practiced at navigating the global clinical-trials arena and should be able to exercise a significant competitive advantage in this area, especially over the existing generics manufacturers attempting a play in the follow-on biologics market. It has been estimated that the investment necessary to bring a follow-on biologic to market is eight to 10 years and will cost $100-$200M [6]. This investment of time and capital is substantial and tends to favor larger firms with significant R&D budgets. However, to put the investment into perspective, this is only one-tenth of the cost of developing a full-scale innovative pharmaceutical product and has less associated risk of failure — a proposition that the big pharma industry should find appealing. Additionally, the trend for current follow-on biologics on the market in the European Union (EU) and United States has been to use traditional detailing and marketing practices to compete with branded products. This, too, puts big pharma at a competitive advantage over other players lacking an army of detailing pharmaceutical reps, who can use their established relationships with doctors and medical personnel to promote new follow-on biologics.One counter-argument to the case for a move into follow-on biologics is that the new healthcare reform, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), passed in March of this year will harm any would-be generic biologics makers with its 12-year exclusivity for branded biologics. However, while this length of time is significantly longer than the proposed five years that generics proponents pushed for, the surety of a secure path forward through the FDA for follow-on biologics outweighs the downside of lengthy biologics exclusivity. It is reasonable to hope that within two to three years, the FDA will have functional guidelines for the regulation of this nascent market. Now more than at any other time in the past, the ambiguity associated with government regulation is manageable. And if big pharma becomes more intentional about entering the follow-on biologics market, its powerful lobby, PhRMA, could influence the way that the details of the FDA regulations are written.If the pharma industry does find the follow-on biologics market appealing and makes a bet on it for supplementary revenue, what can we expect from the patient perspective? It could mean greater access at cheaper prices, but the dynamics are much more nuanced. The economics of the small-molecule generics market likely will not be transferrable to the follow-on biologics market. High barriers to entry, high fixed costs of manufacturing, and marketing expenses will more likely manifest themselves in a market that has a small number of firms with relatively small price drops upon introduction of follow-on therapies. In small-molecule generics, the price typically decreases by about 80 percent from the original branded drug price after one year of generic competition. However, in current follow-on markets in the EU, this has not been the case. Since its introduction of biosimilars regulation in 2004, the EU has successfully introduced numerous follow-on biologics for three classes of branded drugs. The results hint at what might be expected for U.S. firms: By 2008 in Germany, biosimilars had captured an estimated 14 percent to 30 percent market share and discounted prices by 25 percent [7]. The U.S. story of follow-on biologics will likely mirror that of EU biosimilars rather than that of small-molecule generics.With healthcare legislation passed and the inevitable refocusing on bending the cost curve in healthcare expenditures, big pharma firms may be able to boost their reputation with the public as well as their bottom line with a continued push into follow-on biologics. The decreased risk of approval and steady returns will help diversify pharmaceutical companies’ volatile revenue streams, while concurrently winning favorable public opinion by promoting price reductions for some of the most expensive drugs available. The cost savings to consumers will increase access for patients as FDA regulation is finalized and more and more follow-on biologics enter the market. This could be a win-win scenario for big pharma and for patients.     

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.     

Approval of the first biosimilar antibodies in Europe

In a defining moment for the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the biopharmaceutical industry, on June 27, 2013 EMA’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use adopted a positive opinion for two biosimilar infliximab products (Celltrion’s Remsima® and Hospira’s Inflectra®), and recommended that they be approved for marketing in the European Union (EU). The European Commission’s decision on an application is typically issued 67 d after an opinion is provided; thus, decisions are expected in early September 2013. If approved, the products will comprise the first biosimilar antibody made available to patients in a highly regulated market, although launch may be delayed due to an extension of the reference product’s (Remicade®) patent in the EU.     

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.     

Evaluating imbalances of adverse events during biosimilar development

Biosimilars are designed to be highly similar to approved or licensed (reference) biologics and are evaluated based on the totality of evidence from extensive analytical, nonclinical and clinical studies. As part of the stepwise approach recommended by regulatory agencies, the first step in the clinical evaluation of biosimilarity is to conduct a pharmacokinetics similarity study in which the potential biosimilar is compared with the reference product. In the context of biosimilar development, a pharmacokinetics similarity study is not necessarily designed for a comparative assessment of safety. Development of PF-05280014, a potential biosimilar to trastuzumab, illustrates how a numerical imbalance in an adverse event in a small pharmacokinetics study can raise questions on safety that may require additional clinical trials.     

A Guide to Follow-on Biologics and Biosimilars with a Focus on Insulin

Objective: Many healthcare providers in the U.S. are not familiar with follow-on biologics and biosimilars nor with their critical distinctions from standard generics. Our aim is to provide a detailed review of both, with a focus on insulins in the U.S. regulatory system.Methods: Literature has been reviewed to provide information on various aspects of biosimilars and a follow-on biologic of insulin. This will include structure, efficacy, cost, switching, and legal issues.Results: Biologic products are large, complex molecules derived from living sources. Follow-on biologics are copies of the original innovator biologics. It is not possible to copy their structure exactly, leading to possible differences in efficacy and safety. Thus, regulations involving biologics are complex. Follow-on biologics are regulated under two Federal laws until March 23, 2020: the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Biosimilars are follow-on biologics which have been approved via the PHS Act. They consist of those which are “highly similar” to the reference drug and those which are “expected” to produce the same clinical result as the reference drug (interchangeable biosimilars). Interchangeable biosimilars have been determined by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to be substitutable by the pharmacist “without the intervention” of the prescriber. From the patient perspective, switching to a follow-on biologic may necessitate a change in delivery device, which may create issues for patient adherence and dosing.Conclusion: Although they present several challenges in terms of regulation and acceptance, follow-on biologics have the potential to significantly reduce costs for patients requiring insulin therapy.Abbreviations:BLA = biologics license applicationEU = European UnionFDA = Food and Drug AdministrationFD&C = Food, Drug, and CosmeticHCPCS = Healthcare Common Procedure Coding SystemINN = internatinal nonproprietary nameNDA = new drug applicationPHS = Public Health Service     

Bioequivalence of HX575 (recombinant human epoetin alfa) and a comparator epoetin alfa after multiple intravenous administrations: an open-label randomised controlled trial

Background  

HX575 is a human recombinant epoetin alfa that was approved for use in Europe in 2007 under the European Medicines Agency biosimilar approval pathway. Therefore, in order to demonstrate the bioequivalence of HX575 to an existing epoetin alfa, the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic response to steady state circulating concentrations of HX575 and a comparator epoetin alfa were compared following multiple intravenous administrations.     

The challenge of indication extrapolation for infliximab biosimilars

A biosimilar is intended to be highly similar to a reference biologic such that any differences in quality attributes (i.e., molecular characteristics) do not affect safety or efficacy. Achieving this benchmark for biologics, especially large glycoproteins such as monoclonal antibodies, is challenging given their complex structure and manufacturing. Regulatory guidance on biosimilars issued by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Health Canada and European Medicines Agency indicates that, in addition to a demonstration of a high degree of similarity in quality attributes, a reduced number of nonclinical and clinical comparative studies can be sufficient for approval. Following a tiered approach, clinical studies are required to address concerns about possible clinically significant differences that remain after laboratory and nonclinical evaluations. Consequently, a critical question arises: can clinical studies that satisfy concerns regarding safety and efficacy in one condition support “indication extrapolation” to other conditions? This question will be addressed by reviewing the case of a biosimilar to infliximab that was approved recently in South Korea, Europe, and Canada for multiple indications through extrapolation. The principles discussed should also apply to biosimilars of other monoclonal antibodies that are approved to treat multiple distinct conditions.     

Comparison of regulatory pathways for the approval of advanced therapies in the European Union and the United States

Background aimsRegulatory agencies in the European Union (EU) and in the United States of America (USA) have adapted and launched regulatory pathways to accelerate patient access to innovative therapies, such as advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs). The aim of this study is to analyze similarities and differences between regulatory pathways followed by the approved ATMPs in both regions.MethodsA retrospective analysis of the ATMPs approved by EU and US regulatory agencies was carried out until May 31, 2020. Data were collected on the features and timing of orphan drug designation (ODD), scientific advice (SA), expedited program designation (EP), marketing authorization application (MAA) and marketing authorization (MA) for both regions.ResultsIn the EU, a total of fifteen ATMPs were approved (eight gene therapies, three somatic cell therapies, three tissue-engineered products and one combined ATMP), whereas in the USA, a total of nine were approved (five gene therapies and four cell therapies); seven of these were authorized in both regions. No statistical differences were found in the mean time between having the ODD or EP granted and the start of the pivotal clinical trial or MAA in the EU and USA, although the USA required less time for MAA assessment than the EU (mean difference, 5.44, P = 0.012). The MAA assessment was shorter for those products with a PRIME or breakthrough designation.. No differences were found in the percentage of ATMPs with expedited MAA assessment between the EU and the USA (33.3% versus 55.5%, respectively, P = 0.285) or in the time required for the MAA expedited review (mean difference 4.41, P = 0.105). Approximately half of the products in both regions required an Advisory Committee during the MAA review, and 60% required an oral explanation in the EU. More than half of the approved ATMPs (67% and 55.55% in the EU and the USA, respectively) were granted an ODD, 70% by submitting preliminary clinical data in the EU. The mean number of SA and protocol assistance per product conducted by the European Medicines Agency was 1.71 and 3.75, respectively, and only 13% included parallel advice with health technology assessment bodies. A total of 53.33% of the products conducted the first SA after the pivotal clinical study had started, reporting more protocol amendments. Finally, of the seven ATMPs authorized in both regions, the type of MA differed for only two ATMPs (28.6%), and four out of eight products non-commercialized in the USA had a non-standard MA in the EU.ConclusionsThe current approved ATMPs mainly target orphan diseases. Although EU and US regulatory procedures may differ, the main regulatory milestones reached by the approved ATMPs are similar in both regions, with the exception of the time for MAA evaluation, the number of authorized products in the regions and the type of authorization for some products. More global regulatory convergence might further simplify and expedite current ATMP development in these regions.     

Evaluation of the structural,physicochemical, and biological characteristics of SB4, a biosimilar of etanercept

A biosimilar is a biological medicinal product that is comparable to a reference medicinal product in terms of quality, safety, and efficacy. SB4 was developed as a biosimilar to Enbrel® (etanercept) and was approved as Benepali®, the first biosimilar of etanercept licensed in the European Union (EU). The quality assessment of SB4 was performed in accordance with the ICH comparability guideline and the biosimilar guidelines of the European Medicines Agency and Food and Drug Administration. Extensive structural, physicochemical, and biological testing was performed with state-of-the-art technologies during a side-by-side comparison of the products. Similarity of critical quality attributes (CQAs) was evaluated on the basis of tolerance intervals established from quality data obtained from more than 60 lots of EU-sourced and US-sourced etanercept. Additional quality assessment was focused on a detailed investigation of immunogenicity-related quality attributes, including hydrophobic variants, high-molecular-weight (HMW) species, N-glycolylneuraminic acid (NGNA), and α-1,3-galactose. This comprehensive characterization study demonstrated that SB4 is highly similar to the reference product, Enbrel®, in structural, physicochemical, and biological quality attributes. In addition, the levels of potential immunogenicity-related quality attributes of SB4 such as hydrophobic variants, HMW aggregates, and α-1,3-galactose were less than those of the reference product.     

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.     

2016 年7 月美国、欧盟和日本新批准药物概述

2016 年7 月,美国、欧盟和日本共批准36 个新药,包括新分子实体、新有效成分、新生物制品、新增适应证及新剂型药物。 对全球首次获得批准的新分子实体、新有效成分、新生物制品进行分析,重点介绍这些药物的临床研究结果和研发历史进程。