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.     

Evaluation of analytical similarity between trastuzumab biosimilar CT-P6 and reference product using statistical analyses

The evaluation of analytical similarity has been a challenging issue for the biosimilar industry because the number of lots for reference and biosimilar products available at the time of development are limited, whilst measurable quality attributes of target molecule are numerous, which can lead to potential bias or false negative/positive conclusions regarding biosimilarity. Therefore, appropriate statistical analyses are highly desirable to achieve a high level of confidence in the similarity evaluation. A recent guideline for the risk-based statistical approaches recommended by the US Food and Drug Administration provides useful tools to systematically evaluate analytical similarity of biosimilar products compared with reference products. Here, we evaluated analytical similarity of CT-P6, a biosimilar product of trastuzumab, with the reference products (EU-Herceptin® or US-Herceptin®) following these statistical approaches. Various quality attributes of trastuzumab were first ranked based on the clinical impact of each attribute and subsequently adjusted to one of three tiers (Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3) considering the characteristics of the assay, the level of attribute present and the feasibility of statistical analysis. Two biological activities with highest potential clinical impact were evaluated by an equivalent test (Tier 1), and other bioactivities and structural/physicochemical properties relevant to the clinical impact were evaluated by a quality range approach (Tier 2). The attributes with low risk ranking or qualitative assay were evaluated by visual comparison (Tier 3). Analytical similarity assessment analyzed by the three tiers clearly demonstrated that CT-P6 exhibits highly similar structural and physicochemical properties, as well as functional activities, compared with the reference products. There were small differences observed in a few quality attributes between CT-P6 and the reference products, but the differences were very minor, and unlikely to impact on clinical outcome. The recently reported equivalent clinical efficacy of CT-P6 with the reference product further supports that CT-P6 is highly similar compared with the reference product in the view of totality-of-evidence.     

Assessment of structural and functional similarity of biosimilar products: Rituximab as a case study

Biosimilars are products that are similar in terms of quality, safety, and efficacy to an already licensed reference/ innovator product and are expected to offer improved affordability. The most significant source of reduction in the cost of development of a biosimilar is the reduced clinical examination that it is expected to undergo as compared to the innovator product. However, this clinical relief is predicated on the assumption that there is analytical similarity between the biosimilar and the innovator product. As a result, establishing analytical similarity is arguably the most important step towards successful development of a biosimilar. Here, we present results from an analytical similarity exercise that was performed with five biosimilars of rituximab (Ristova®, Roche), a chimeric mouse/ human monoclonal antibody biotherapeutic, that are available on the Indian market. The results show that, while the biosimilars exhibited similarity with respect to protein structure and function, there were significant differences with respect to size heterogeneity, charge heterogeneity and glycosylation pattern.     

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?).     

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.     

Physicochemical and biological characterization of SB2, a biosimilar of Remicade® (infliximab)

A biosimilar is a biological medicinal product that contains a version of the active substance of an already authorized original biological medicinal product. Biosimilarity to the reference product (RP) in terms of quality characteristics, such as physicochemical and biological properties, safety, and efficacy, based on a comprehensive comparability exercise needs to be established. SB2 (Flixabi® and Renflexis®) is a biosimilar to Remicade® (infliximab). The development of SB2 was performed in accordance with relevant guidelines of the International Conference on Harmonisation, the European Medicines Agency, and the United States Food and Drug Administration. To determine whether critical quality attributes meet quality standards, an extensive characterization test was performed with more than 80 lots of EU- and US-sourced RP. The physicochemical characterization study results revealed that SB2 was similar to the RP. Although a few differences in physicochemical attributes were observed, the evidence from the related literature, structure-activity relationship studies, and comparative biological assays showed that these differences were unlikely to be clinically meaningful. The biological characterization results showed that SB2 was similar to the RP in terms of tumor necrosis factor–α (TNF-α) binding and TNF-α neutralization activities as a main mode of action. SB2 was also similar in Fc-related biological activities including antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity, complement-dependent cytotoxicity, neonatal Fc receptor binding, C1q binding, and Fc gamma receptor binding activities. These analytical findings support that SB2 is similar to the RP and also provide confidence of biosimilarity in terms of clinical safety and efficacy.     

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.     

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.     

Analytical similarity assessment of rituximab biosimilar CT-P10 to reference medicinal product

CT-P10 (Truxima?) was recently approved as the world's first rituximab biosimilar product in the European Union (EU) and South Korea. To demonstrate biosimilarity of CT-P10 with the reference medicinal product (RMP), extensive 3-way similarity assessment has been conducted between CT-P10, EU-Rituximab and US-Rituximab, focusing on the physicochemical and biological quality attributes. A multitude of state-of-the-art analyses revealed that CT-P10 has identical primary and higher order structures compared to the original product. Purity/impurity profiles of CT-P10 measured by the levels of aggregates, fragments, non-glycosylated form and process-related impurities were also found to be comparable with those of RMPs. In terms of the post-translational modification, CT-P10 contains slightly less N-terminal pyro-glutamate variant, which has been known not to affect product efficacy or safety. Oligosaccharide profiling has revealed that, although CT-P10 contains the same conserved glycan species and relative proportion with the RMPs, the content of total afucosylated glycan in CT-P10 was slightly higher than in EU- or US-Rituximab. Nevertheless, the effect of the observed level of afucosylation in CT-P10 drug product on Fc receptor binding affinity or antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity was found to be negligible based on the spiking study with highly afucosylated sample. Arrays of biological assays representative of known and putative mechanisms of action for rituximab have shown that biological activities of CT-P10 are within the quality range of RMPs. Recent results of clinical studies have further confirmed that the CT-P10 exhibits equivalent clinical efficacy and safety profiles compared to EU- and US-Rituximab. The current 3-way similarity assessment together with clinical study results confidently demonstrate that CT-P10 is highly similar with EU- and US-Rituximab in terms of physicochemical properties, biological activities, efficacy, and safety for its final approval as a biosimilar product.     

Summary of the diverse situation of similar biotherapeutic products in the selected countries (August 2010)

The WHO guidelines on evaluating similar biotherapeutic products (SBPs) were adopted by the Expert Committee on Biological Standardization in 2009. The fundamental messages of the guidelines are that a) generic approach is not suitable for licensing SBPs, b) only products that have been subjected to a comparability exercise and show similarity to the reference biotherapeutic product (RBP) in terms of their quality, safety and efficacy are defined as SBPs, and c) the products that are not shown to be similar to the originator products as indicated in the guidelines should neither be described as "similar" nor called SBPs. In view of these, the products which have not been subjected to a head to head comparison with the RBP should be referred to as another term, e.g. 'non-innovator' therapeutic products. In order to review the current situation in each country, a survey was planned in line with the implementation workshop of the guidelines in August 2010. The results show that the diversity of regulatory framework for licensing SBPs and the ambiguous use of the terms, 'similar' or 'generic', present considerable challenges for the future use of SBPs.     

Monoclonal antibodies biosimilarity assessment using transient isotachophoresis capillary zone electrophoresis-tandem mass spectrometry

Out of all categories, monoclonal antibody (mAb) therapeutics attract the most interest due to their strong therapeutic potency and specificity. Six of the 10 top-selling drugs are antibody-based therapeutics that will lose patent protection soon. The European Medicines Agency has pioneered the regulatory framework for approval of biosimilar products and approved the first biosimilar antibodies by the end of 2013. As highly complex glycoproteins with a wide range of micro-variants, mAbs require extensive characterization through multiple analytical methods for structure assessment rendering manufacturing control and biosimilarity studies particularly product and time-consuming. Here, capillary zone electrophoresis coupled to mass spectrometry by a sheathless interface (CESI-MS) was used to characterize marketed reference mAbs and their respective biosimilar candidate simultaneously over different facets of their primary structure. CESI-MS/MS data were compared between approved mAbs and their biosimilar candidates to prove/disconfirm biosimilarity regarding recent regulation directives. Using only a single sample injection of 200 fmol, CESI-MS/MS data enabled 100% amino acids (AA) sequence characterization, which allows a difference of even one AA between 2 samples to be distinguished precisely. Simultaneously glycoforms were characterized regarding their structures and position through fragmentation spectra and glycoforms semiquantitative analysis was established, showing the capacity of the developed methodology to detect up to 16 different glycans. Other posttranslational modifications hotspots were characterized while their relative occurrence levels were estimated and compared to biosimilars. These results proved the value of using CESI-MS because the separation selectivity and ionization efficiency provided by the system allowed substantial improvement in the characterization workflow robustness and accuracy. Biosimilarity assessment could be performed routinely with a single injection of each candidate enabling improvements in the biosimilar development pipeline.     

Biosimilars advancements: Moving on to the future

Many patents for the first biologicals derived from recombinant technology and, more recently, monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are expiring. Naturally, biosimilars are becoming an increasingly important area of interest for the pharmaceutical industry worldwide, not only for emergent countries that need to import biologic products. This review shows the evolution of biosimilar development regarding regulatory, manufacturing bioprocess, comparability, and marketing. The regulatory landscape is evolving globally, whereas analytical structure and functional analyses provide the foundation of a biosimilar development program. The challenges to develop and demonstrate biosimilarity should overcome the inherent differences in the bioprocess manufacturing and physicochemical and biological characterization of a biosimilar compared to several lots of the reference product. The implementation of approaches, such as Quality by Design (QbD), will provide products with defined specifications in relation to quality, purity, safety, and efficacy that were not possible when the reference product was developed. Actually, the need to prove comparability to the reference product by the biosimilar industry has increased the knowledge about the product and the production‐process associated by the use of powerful analytical tools. The technological challenges to make copies of biologic products while attending regulatory and market demands are expected to help innovation in the direction of attaining more productive manufacturing processes. © 2015 American Institute of Chemical Engineers Biotechnol. Prog., 31:1139–1149, 2015     

Monoclonal antibodies biosimilarity assessment using transient isotachophoresis capillary zone electrophoresis-tandem mass spectrometry

Out of all categories, monoclonal antibody (mAb) therapeutics attract the most interest due to their strong therapeutic potency and specificity. Six of the 10 top-selling drugs are antibody-based therapeutics that will lose patent protection soon. The European Medicines Agency has pioneered the regulatory framework for approval of biosimilar products and approved the first biosimilar antibodies by the end of 2013. As highly complex glycoproteins with a wide range of micro-variants, mAbs require extensive characterization through multiple analytical methods for structure assessment rendering manufacturing control and biosimilarity studies particularly product and time-consuming. Here, capillary zone electrophoresis coupled to mass spectrometry by a sheathless interface (CESI-MS) was used to characterize marketed reference mAbs and their respective biosimilar candidate simultaneously over different facets of their primary structure. CESI-MS/MS data were compared between approved mAbs and their biosimilar candidates to prove/disconfirm biosimilarity regarding recent regulation directives. Using only a single sample injection of 200 fmol, CESI-MS/MS data enabled 100% amino acids (AA) sequence characterization, which allows a difference of even one AA between 2 samples to be distinguished precisely. Simultaneously glycoforms were characterized regarding their structures and position through fragmentation spectra and glycoforms semiquantitative analysis was established, showing the capacity of the developed methodology to detect up to 16 different glycans. Other posttranslational modifications hotspots were characterized while their relative occurrence levels were estimated and compared to biosimilars. These results proved the value of using CESI-MS because the separation selectivity and ionization efficiency provided by the system allowed substantial improvement in the characterization workflow robustness and accuracy. Biosimilarity assessment could be performed routinely with a single injection of each candidate enabling improvements in the biosimilar development pipeline.     

Drifts in ADCC-related quality attributes of Herceptin®: Impact on development of a trastuzumab biosimilar

A biosimilar product needs to demonstrate biosimilarity to the originator reference product, and the quality profile of the latter should be monitored throughout the period of the biosimilar's development to match the quality attributes of the 2 products that relate to efficacy and safety. For the development of a biosimilar version of trastuzumab, the reference product, Herceptin®, was extensively characterized for the main physicochemical and biologic properties by standard or state-of-the-art analytical methods, using multiple lots expiring between March 2015 and December 2019. For lots with expiry dates up to July 2018, a high degree of consistency was observed for all the tested properties. However, among the lots expiring in August 2018 or later, a downward drift was observed in %afucose (G0+G1+G2). Furthermore, the upward drift of %high mannose (M5+M6) was observed in the lots with expiry dates from June 2019 to December 2019. As a result, the combination of %afucose and %high mannose showed 2 marked drifts in the lots with expiry dates from August 2018 to December 2019, which was supported by the similar trend of biologic data, such as FcγRIIIa binding and antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity (ADCC) activity. Considering that ADCC is one of the clinically relevant mechanisms of action for trastuzumab, the levels of %afucose and %high mannose should be tightly monitored as critical quality attributes for biosimilar development of trastuzumab.     

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。     

Biosimilars clinical development program: confirmatory clinical trials: a virtual/simulated case study comparing equivalence and non-inferiority approaches

As part of long term commitment of the Biologicals and Vaccines Committee (B&V) of the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Association (IFPMA) to provide expert input to the WHO on their recently finalized GUIDELINES ON EVALUATION OF SIMILAR BIOTHERAPEUTIC PRODUCTS (SBPs), and in response to WHO's request, the IFPMA B&V prepared a clinical case study at a recent WHO workshop in Seoul, Korea. The case study, presented by Mark Fletcher on behalf of B&V, involved a model scenario for a clinical efficacy trial to support the approval of a Similar Biotherapeutic Product (SBP) as part of the required comparative clinical program against a Reference Biotherapeutic Product (RBP). A key goal was to understand and illustrate key clinical and statistical principles, and considerations described in the WHO Guidance for regulatory authorities when designing and implementing WHO guidelines and post-approval regulatory oversight for SBPs. Using this model SBP/RBP pair, an interactive discussion was carried out among the workshop participants on the pros and cons of using equivalence vs. non-inferiority designs to assess the two products' similarity. Through discussion of the case, the complexity of demonstrating similar efficacy and safety of a SBP vs. RBP for biotherapeutic products is outlined and discussed in the context of the key principles laid out in the recently published WHO GUIDELINES ON EVALUATION OF SIMILAR BIOTHERAPEUTIC PRODUCTS (SBPs). The exercise illustrates the need for a case-by-case approach when interpreting clinical data from SBP dossiers to adequately assure similar efficacy and safety of SBPs for any studied indication.     

Evaluation of similar biotherapeutic products (SBPs): scientific principles and their implementation

The availability of biotherapeutic products to patients has a major impact on the success in treating many life-threatening and chronic diseases. These products are often derived by recombinant DNA technology and are expensive for the majority of patients who need them most. Increasing numbers of patents/data protection are now expiring and biologicals "similar" to the originators (innovative products) are coming to the market. This process is seen as a mechanism for increasing the access to biotherapeutic products which are very much needed for the treatment of chronic diseases worldwide. The emergence of Similar Biological Products (SBPs) has created numerous challenges in developing, licensing, and using these important products. From a public health perspective, the overall expectation is that similar products will be available at an affordable price and will increase patients' access to the therapy. In response to the requests for assistance in defining regulatory requirements for SBPs, the WHO Expert Committee on Biological Standardization (ECBS) adopted the new WHO Guidelines for evaluation of SBPs in October 2009. This article provides a brief account of the WHO initiative to assist its member states to establish national requirements for the regulatory oversight of SBPs. The aim of the article is to inform its readers of the current status of WHO Guidelines on the evaluation of similar biotherapeutic products and of the plan to strengthen national regulatory requirements to assure quality, safety and efficacy of similar biotherapeutic products at the global level.     

Variability of intended copies for etanercept (Enbrel®): Data on multiple batches of seven products

Fusion protein and monoclonal antibody-based tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors represent established treatment options for a range of inflammatory diseases. Regulatory authorities have outlined the structural characterization and clinical assessments necessary to establish biosimilarity of a new biotherapeutic product with the innovator biologic drug. Biologic products that would not meet the minimum World Health Organization's standard for evaluation of similar biotherapeutic products are available in some countries; in some cases relevant data to assess biosimilarity and appropriate regulatory approval pathways are lacking.

Batches of seven intended copy (IC) products for etanercept (Enbrel®) were subjected to a subset of test methods used in the routine release and heightened characterization of Enbrel®, to determine key attributes of identity, quality, purity, strength, and activity. While a number of quality attributes of the IC lots tested met the release specifications for Enbrel®, none fell within these limits across all methods performed, and there were no IC lots that satisfied the criteria typically applied by the innovator to support comparability with Enbrel®. Although the consequences of these differences are largely unknown, the potential for unanticipated clinical outcomes should not be overlooked.     

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.