Antibodies to watch in 2017

Over 50 investigational monoclonal antibody (mAb) therapeutics are currently undergoing evaluation in late-stage clinical studies, which is expected to drive a trend toward first marketing approvals of at least 6–9 mAbs per year in the near-term. In the United States (US), a total of 6 and 9 mAbs were granted first approvals during 2014 and 2015, respectively; all these products are also approved in the European Union (EU). As of December 1, 2016, 6 mAbs (atezolizumab, olaratumab, reslizumab, ixekizumab, bezlotoxumab, oblitoxaximab) had been granted first approvals during 2016 in either the EU or US. Brodalumab, was granted a first approval in Japan in July 2016. Regulatory actions on marketing applications for brodalumab in the EU and US are not expected until 2017. In 2017, first EU or US approvals may also be granted for at least nine mAbs (ocrelizumab, avelumab, Xilonix, inotuzumab ozogamicin, dupilumab, sirukumab, sarilumab, guselkumab, romosozumab) that are not yet approved in any country. Based on announcements of company plans for regulatory submissions and the estimated completion dates for late-stage clinical studies, and assuming the study results are positive, marketing applications for at least 6 antibody therapeutics (benralizumab, tildrakizumab, emicizumab, galcanezumab, ibalizumab, PRO-140) that are now being evaluated in late-stage clinical studies may be submitted during December 2016* or 2017. Other ‘antibodies to watch' in 2017 include 20 mAbs are undergoing evaluation in pivotal studies that have estimated primary completion dates in late 2016 or during 2017. Of these, 5 mAbs are for cancer (durvalumab, JNJ-56022473, ublituximab, anetumab ravtansine, glembatumumab vedotin) and 15 mAbs are for non-cancer indications (caplacizumab, lanadelumab, roledumab, tralokinumab, risankizumab, SA237, emapalumab, suptavumab, erenumab, eptinezumab, fremanezumab, fasinumab, tanezumab, lampalizumab, brolucizumab). Positive results from these studies may enable submission of marketing applications in 2017 or 2018, or provide justification for additional studies. *See note added in proof for update through December 31, 2016.     

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.     

Inheritance of a one-seeded pod trait in peanut

Normally, the cultivated peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) has predominantly 2 seeds per pod or more. Two seeds per pod are predominantly found in A. hypogaea L. subsp. hypogaea var. hypogaea (the botanical classification of the US runner and virginia market types) and in subsp. fastigiata var. vulgaris (the US spanish market type); whereas, predominantly 3 or more seeds per pod are found in subsp. fastigiata vars. fastigiata (the US valencia market type), peruviana (not marketed in the United States), and aequatoriana (not marketed in the United States), and in subsp. hypogaea var. hirsuta (not marketed in the United States). However, recently, predominantly 1 seed per pod selections were found within a Georgia cross population. Crosses involving the 1-seeded pod selection were made to determine its inheritance. The F(1), F(2), and F(3) data indicated that any 2 of 3 duplicate recessive genes designated, osp(1), osp(2), and osp(3), control the 1-seeded pod trait in peanut.     

Antibodies to watch in 2018

The pace of antibody therapeutics development accelerated in 2017, and this faster pace is projected to continue through 2018. Notably, the annual number of antibody therapeutics granted a first approval in either the European Union (EU) or United States (US) reached double-digits (total of 10) for the first time in 2017. The 10 antibodies granted approvals are: brodalumab, dupilumab, sarilumab, guselkumab, benralizumab, ocrelizumab, inotuzumab ozogamicin, avelumab, duvalumab, and emicizumab. Brodalumab, however, had already been approved in Japan in 2016. As of December 1, 2017, nine antibody therapeutics (ibalizumab, burosumab, tildrakizumab, caplacizumab, erenumab, fremanezumab, galcanezumab, romosozumab, mogamulizumab) were in regulatory review in the EU or US, and regulatory actions on their marketing applications are expected by the end of 2018. Based on company announcements and estimated clinical study primary completion dates, and assuming the study results are positive, marketing applications for at least 12 antibody therapeutics that are now being evaluated in late-stage clinical studies may be submitted by the end of 2018. Of the 12 candidates, 8 are for non-cancer indications (lanadelumab, crizanlizumab, ravulizumab, eptinezumab, risankizumab, satralizumab, brolucizumab, PRO140) and 4 are for cancer (sacituzumab govitecan, moxetumomab pasudotox, cemiplimab, ublituximab). Additional antibody therapeutics to watch in 2018 include 19 mAbs undergoing evaluation in late-stage studies with primary completion dates in late 2017 or during 2018. Of these mAbs, 9 are for non-cancer indications (lampalizumab, roledumab, emapalumab, fasinumab, tanezumab, etrolizumab, NEOD001, gantenerumab, anifrolumab) and 10 are for cancer indications (tremelimumab, isatuximab, BCD-100, carotuximab, camrelizumab, IBI308, glembatumumab vedotin, mirvetuximab soravtansine, oportuzumab monatox, L19IL2/L19TNF). Positive clinical study results may enable marketing application submissions in 2018. Brief summaries of these antibody therapeutics are provided in this installment of the ‘Antibodies to watch’ article series.     

Time required for approval of new drugs in Canada,Australia, Sweden,the United Kingdom and the United States in 1996-1998

BACKGROUND: The timeliness with which national regulatory agencies approve new drugs for marketing affects health care professionals and patients. An unnecessarily long approval process delays access to new medications that may improve patients'' health status. The author compared drug approval times in Canada, Australia, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States. METHODS: Application and approval dates of new chemical or biological substances (excluding diagnostic products, and new salts, esters, dosage forms and combinations of previously approved substances) approved for marketing in the 5 countries from January 1996 to December 1998 were requested from the relevant pharmaceutical companies. Data on new drug approvals during the study period were also obtained from the national drug regulatory agencies in Canada, Australia and Sweden and from publications of the US Food and Drug Administration. RESULTS: A total of 219 new drugs were identified as being approved in at least one of the countries during the study period: 23 (10.5%) in all 5 countries, 23 (10.5%) in 4, 27 (12.3%) in 3, 42 (19.2%) in 2, and 104 (47.5%) in 1 country. By individual nation, 97 drugs were identified as being approved in Canada, 94 in Australia, 107 in Sweden, 55 in the UK and 123 in the US. Approval times in Canada and Australia were similar (medians 518 and 526 days respectively), but both countries had significantly longer approval times than Sweden (median 371 days), the UK (median 308 days) and the US (median 369 days). This pattern was consistent across all 3 years and for the 23 new drugs approved in all 5 countries during the 3-year period. Median approval times in Canada were similar in all of the reviewing divisions of Health Canada''s Therapeutic Product Program (539-574 days) except the Central Nervous System Division (428 days) and the Bureau of Biologics and Radiopharmaceuticals (698 days). INTERPRETATION: Median drug approval times during 1996-1998 decreased by varying amounts from the 1995 values in all 5 countries. However, the median approval time in Canada continues to be significantly longer than the times achieved in Sweden, the UK and the US, and it remains considerably longer than Canada''s own target of 355 days for all new drugs.     

Utilization of monoclonal antibody-targeted nanomaterials in the treatment of cancer

Due to their excellent specificity for a single epitope, monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) present a means of influencing the function of cells at the molecular level. In particular they show great promise in the treatment of cancer because they can inhibit cancer cell proliferation, tumor angiogenesis, invasiveness and malignant spread of cancerous cells. Many mAbs are in various stages of testing and 11 are currently marketed in the US or Europe for the treatment of cancers that express particular antigens such as human epidermal growth factor receptor-2, CD20, epidermal growth factor receptor and vascular endothelial growth factor. Strategies to conjugate mAbs to toxins, radioactive isotopes and chemotherapeutic drugs to improve efficacy are under intense investigation and numerous immunoconjugates have been studied in the clinical setting. However, the molecules have limitations, and so nanomaterials (NMs), which potentially offer more flexibility of design and functionality in providing platforms for binding of multiple therapeutic agents in a single structure, are being examined as an alternative. Studies utilizing mAb-targeted NMs have shown that they exhibit focused targeting, improved pharmacokinetics and improved “passive” drug delivery via leaky vasculature. Nevertheless, before they can be utilized to treat cancer, potential NM toxicity must be thoroughly investigated. Thus, rigorous testing of NM-mAb conjugates in both in vitro and in vivo systems is underway to determine how NM-mAb conjugates will interact with cells and tissues of the body. In this review, we discuss the broad range of nanomaterials that are under investigation as potential platforms for the presentation of mAbs either as single therapeutics or in combination with other drugs and their advantages and limitations in specifically targeting cancer.     

A decade of marketing approval of gene and cell-based therapies in the United States,European Union and Japan: An evaluation of regulatory decision-making

There is a widely held expectation of clinical advance with the development of gene and cell-based therapies (GCTs). Yet, establishing benefits and risks is highly uncertain. We examine differences in decision-making for GCT approval between jurisdictions by comparing regulatory assessment procedures in the United States (US), European Union (EU) and Japan. A cohort of 18 assessment procedures was analyzed by comparing product characteristics, evidentiary and non-evidentiary factors considered for approval and post-marketing risk management. Product characteristics are very heterogeneous and only three products are marketed in multiple jurisdictions. Almost half of all approved GCTs received an orphan designation. Overall, confirmatory evidence or indications of clinical benefit were evident in US and EU applications, whereas in Japan approval was solely granted based on non-confirmatory evidence. Due to scientific uncertainties and safety risks, substantial post-marketing risk management activities were requested in the EU and Japan. EU and Japanese authorities often took unmet medical needs into consideration in decision-making for approval. These observations underline the effects of implemented legislation in these two jurisdictions that facilitate an adaptive approach to licensing. In the US, the recent assessments of two chimeric antigen receptor-T cell (CAR-T) products are suggestive of a trend toward a more permissive approach for GCT approval under recent reforms, in contrast to a more binary decision-making approach for previous approvals. It indicates that all three regulatory agencies are currently willing to take risks by approving GCTs with scientific uncertainties and safety risks, urging them to pay accurate attention to post-marketing risk management.     

Use of Fixed Dose Combination (FDC) Drugs in India: Central Regulatory Approval and Sales of FDCs Containing Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs (NSAIDs), Metformin,or Psychotropic Drugs

Background

In 2012, an Indian parliamentary committee reported that manufacturing licenses for large numbers of fixed dose combination (FDC) drugs had been issued by state authorities without prior approval of the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) in violation of rules, and considered that some ambiguity until 1 May 2002 about states’ powers might have contributed. To our knowledge, no systematic enquiry has been undertaken to determine if evidence existed to support these findings. We investigated CDSCO approvals for and availability of oral FDC drugs in four therapeutic areas: analgesia (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs [NSAIDs]), diabetes (metformin), depression/anxiety (anti-depressants/benzodiazepines), and psychosis (anti-psychotics).

Methods and Findings

This was an ecologic study with a time-trend analysis of FDC sales volumes (2007–2012) and a cross-sectional examination of 2011–2012 data to establish the numbers of formulations on the market with and without a record of CDSCO approval (“approved” and “unapproved”), their branded products, and sales volumes. Data from the CDSCO on approved FDC formulations were compared with sales data from PharmaTrac, a database of national drug sales. We determined the proportions of FDC sales volumes (2011–2012) arising from centrally approved and unapproved formulations and from formulations including drugs banned/restricted internationally. We also determined the proportions of centrally approved and unapproved formulations marketed before and after 1 May 2002, when amendments were made to the drug rules. FDC approvals in India, the United Kingdom (UK), and United States of America (US) were compared.For NSAID FDCs, 124 formulations were marketed, of which 34 (27%) were centrally approved and 90 (73%) were unapproved; metformin: 25 formulations, 20 (80%) approved, five (20%) unapproved; anti-depressants/benzodiazepines: 16 formulations, three (19%) approved, 13 (81%) unapproved; anti-psychotics: ten formulations, three (30%) approved, seven (70%) unapproved. After 1 May 2002, the proportions of approved FDC formulations increased for NSAIDs (26%/28%) and anti-psychotics (0%/38%) and decreased for metformin (100%/75%) and anti-depressants/benzodiazepines (20%/18%), and the overall proportion approved remained similar before and after that date.FDC formulations gave rise to multiple branded products, ranging from 211 anti-psychotic FDC products from ten formulations to 2,739 NSAID FDC products from 124 formulations. The proportions of FDC sales volumes arising from unapproved formulations were as follows: anti-depressants/benzodiazepines, 69%; anti-psychotics, 43%; NSAIDs, 28%; and metformin, 0.4%. Formulations including drugs banned/restricted internationally comprised over 12% of NSAID FDC sales and 53% of anti-psychotic FDC sales. Across the four therapeutic areas, 14 FDC formulations were approved in the UK and 22 in the US.

Conclusions

There was evidence supporting concerns about FDCs. Metformin excepted, substantial numbers of centrally unapproved formulations for NSAID, anti-depressant/benzodiazepine, and anti-psychotic FDCs were marketed; sales volumes were high. The legal need for central approval of new drugs before manufacture has been in place continuously since 1961, including for FDCs meeting the applicable legal test. Proportions of centrally unapproved formulations after 1 May 2002 did not decrease overall, and no ambiguity was found about states’ licensing powers. Unapproved formulations should be banned immediately, prioritising those withdrawn/banned internationally and undertaking a review of benefits and risks for patients in ceasing or switching to other medicines. Drug laws need to be amended to ensure the safety and effectiveness of medicines marketed in India.     

Ustekinumab

Ustekinumab is an anti-IL12/23 IgG1 kappa human monoclonal antibody currently undergoing US Food and Drug Administration review for use as a psoriasis treatment. The candidate has also been evaluated in Phase 2 studies as a treatment for psoriatic arthritis, Crohn disease, and multiple sclerosis. In large clinical trials, ustekinumab has proven effective for treating moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. Although long-term follow-up studies are needed to address safety concerns, the hopes are high for psoriasis treatment. Ustekinumab has recently been approved for marketing in Canada and Europe.     

Intercontinental differences in overweight of adopted Koreans in the United States and Europe

A greater proportion of the United States (US) population is overweight or obese (with BMI over 25 kg/m²) relative to all Western European populations, and it might be expected that migrants to either the US or Western Europe would develop patterns of overweight and obesity that reflect this difference. This paper examines the effects of obesogenic environments on Asians by reporting differences in rates of overweight (which is taken to include obesity in this analysis) among 261 adult South Koreans, which had been adopted in early-life into white middle class families living in the US and in Western European Nations. Data collected during an international adoption survey carried out for the Korean government in 2008 were analyzed. The prevalence of overweight of adopted Koreans raised in the US significantly exceeds the level among adopted Koreans in Europe by 11.3%. These intercontinental differences are statistically significant after controlling for sex, current age, age of adoption, and education. This paper supports the view that life-style factors are more detrimental for the weight status of people in the US than in Western Europe.     

Antibodies in oncology

Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) have become one of the largest classes of new therapeutic agents approved for use in oncology, and have revolutionised the treatment of many human malignancies. Clinically useful mAbs can function through several different mechanisms, including inhibition of tumour-related signalling, induction of apoptosis, inhibition of angiogenesis, enhancing host immune response against cancer and targeted delivery of payloads (such as toxins, cytotoxic agents or radioisotopes) to the tumour site. The increasing knowledge of key molecules and cellular pathways involved in tumour induction and progression has led to a rise in the proportion of therapeutic mAbs entering clinical trials. These mAbs consist of various conventional or recombinant, murine, humanised, chimeric or fully human and fusion constructs. In this review, we provide an overview of mAbs approved for use in clinical oncology and those currently in clinical development. We also discuss the mechanisms of action of anti-cancer mAbs, as well as the antigen targets recognised by these antibodies.     

生物多样性抵消的研究进展

生物多样性抵消(biodiversity offsetting)是一种补偿模式, 在国际上已广泛实施, 包括北美和欧洲, 但尚未在中国开展。本文综述了生物多样性抵消的优点和主要问题, 特别是美国和英国的实际情况, 并展望了中国开展生物多样性抵消项目的前景。生物多样性抵消的主要优点有: (1)理论上成果透明可靠; (2)理论上结果始终积极; (3)衍生出主动积极保护生物多样性的方法——抵消银行。目前仍存在的主要问题包括: (1) “可量化的保护成果”难以实现; (2)无净损失难以达成; (3)实践过程中监管存在问题; (4)实施与结果之间的滞后性。此外, 还讨论了美国和英国案例中一些更加具体的问题, 如模糊和过时的法律和政策、不适当的抵消比例等。总之, 生物多样性抵消的主要问题是现有的研究无法支撑其理想化的实施和实际应用中出现的各类主观性问题。从目前的证据来看, 生物多样性抵消或许能为我国环境保护、可持续发展提供一定的帮助。建议加强对生物多样性抵消在中国可行性的研究, 包括引入抵消层次、完善生物多样性量化指标、试点项目和抵消银行等, 为我国制定生物多样性保护政策提供更多的理论基础。     

Metrics for antibody therapeutics development

A wide variety of full-size monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and therapeutics derived from alternative antibody formats can be produced through genetic and biological engineering techniques. These molecules are now filling the preclinical and clinical pipelines of every major pharmaceutical company and many biotechnology firms. Metrics for the development of antibody therapeutics, including averages for the number of candidates entering clinical study and development phase lengths for mAbs approved in the United States, were derived from analysis of a dataset of over 600 therapeutic mAbs that entered clinical study sponsored, at least in part, by commercial firms. The results presented provide an overview of the field and context for the evaluation of on-going and prospective mAb development programs. The expansion of therapeutic antibody use through supplemental marketing approvals and the increase in the study of therapeutics derived from alternative antibody formats are discussed.     

Harmonizing regulations for biomedical research: a critical analysis of the US and Venezuelan systems

This article aims to compare the national legal systems that regulate biomedical research in an industrialized country (United States) and a developing country (Venezuela). A new international order is emerging in which Europe, Japan and the United States (US) are revising common guidelines and harmonizing standards. In this article, we analyze - as an example - the US system. This system is controlled by a federal agency structured to regulate research funded by the federal government uniformly, either in the US or abroad. In contrast, in Venezuela, a developing country, the creation of a centralized system is a slow process. Different types of ethical committees review research projects using non-uniform criteria. Consequently, various parallel organizations that conduct biomedical research, such as universities, research institutes and private hospitals have diverse regulations operating at a local level. Thus, the most relevant difference between the Venezuelan and the US systems is the degree of standardization. In the US, the review process is performed by institutional review boards (IRBs), which have a similar organization and maintain relationships with a centralized agency, following standard regulations. Although new proposals for establishing national regulations are currently being considered in Venezuela, the success of these initiatives will depend on promoting governmental efforts to create a more structured centralized system supported by a national regulatory framework. This system will need governmental financial support at all levels. This article proposes an integrated system to regulate research with human participants in Venezuela and other developing countries.     

Ustekinumab

Ustekinumab is an anti-IL12/23 IgG1 kappa human monoclonal antibody currently undergoing US Food and Drug Administration review for use as a psoriasis treatment. The candidate has also been evaluated in Phase 2 studies as a treatment for psoriatic arthritis, Crohn disease and multiple sclerosis. In large clinical trials, ustekinumab has proven effective for treating moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. Although long-term follow-up studies are needed to address safety concerns, the hopes are high for psoriasis treatment. Ustekinumab has recently been approved for marketing in Canada and Europe.Key words: ustekinumab, CNTO-1275, Stelara, psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, Crohn disease, multiple sclerosis     

Antibodies to watch in 2015

The commercial pipeline of recombinant antibody therapeutics is robust and dynamic. As of early December 2014, a total of 6 such products (vedolizumab, siltuximab, ramucirumab, pembrolizumab, nivolumab, blinatumomab) were granted first marketing approvals in 2014. As discussed in this perspective on antibodies in late-stage development, the outlook for additional approvals, potentially still in 2014 and certainly in 2015, is excellent as marketing applications for 6 antibody therapeutics (secukinumab, evolocumab, mepolizumab, dinutuximab, nivolumab, necitumumab) are undergoing a first regulatory review in the EU or US. Of the 39 novel mAbs currently in Phase 3 studies, a marketing application for one (alirocumab) may be submitted in late 2014, and marketing application submissions for at least 4 (reslizumab, ixekizumab, ocrelizumab, obiltoxaximab) are expected in 2015. Other ‘antibodies to watch’ are those in Phase 3 studies with estimated primary completion dates in late 2014 or 2015, which includes 13 for non-cancer indications (brodalumab, bimagrumab, bococizumab, MABp1, gevokizumab, dupilumab, sirukumab, sarilumab, tildrakizumab, guselkumab, epratuzumab, combination of actoxumab + bezlotoxumab, romosozumab) and 2 (racotumomab and clivatuzumab tetraxetan) undergoing evaluation as treatments for cancer. In addition to the novel antibody therapeutics mentioned, biosimilar infliximab and biosimilar trastuzumab are ‘antibodies to watch’ in 2015 because of their potential for entry into the US market and regulatory review, respectively.     

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.     

Quantitative analysis on the characteristics of targets with FDA approved drugs

Accumulated knowledge of genomic information, systems biology, and disease mechanisms provide an unprecedented opportunity to elucidate the genetic basis of diseases, and to discover new and novel therapeutic targets from the wealth of genomic data. With hundreds to a few thousand potential targets available in the human genome alone, target selection and validation has become a critical component of drug discovery process. The explorations on quantitative characteristics of the currently explored targets (those without any marketed drug) and successful targets (targeted by at least one marketed drug) could help discern simple rules for selecting a putative successful target. Here we use integrative in silico (computational) approaches to quantitatively analyze the characteristics of 133 targets with FDA approved drugs and 3120 human disease genes (therapeutic targets) not targeted by FDA approved drugs. This is the first attempt to comparatively analyze targets with FDA approved drugs and targets with no FDA approved drug or no drugs available for them. Our results show that proteins with 5 or fewer number of homologs outside their own family, proteins with single-exon gene architecture and proteins interacting with more than 3 partners are more likely to be targetable. These quantitative characteristics could serve as criteria to search for promising targetable disease genes.     

Antibodies to watch in 2015

The commercial pipeline of recombinant antibody therapeutics is robust and dynamic. As of early December 2014, a total of 6 such products (vedolizumab, siltuximab, ramucirumab, pembrolizumab, nivolumab, blinatumomab) were granted first marketing approvals in 2014. As discussed in this perspective on antibodies in late-stage development, the outlook for additional approvals, potentially still in 2014 and certainly in 2015, is excellent as marketing applications for 6 antibody therapeutics (secukinumab, evolocumab, mepolizumab, dinutuximab, nivolumab, necitumumab) are undergoing a first regulatory review in the EU or US. Of the 39 novel mAbs currently in Phase 3 studies, a marketing application for one (alirocumab) may be submitted in late 2014, and marketing application submissions for at least 4 (reslizumab, ixekizumab, ocrelizumab, obiltoxaximab) are expected in 2015. Other ‘antibodies to watch’ are those in Phase 3 studies with estimated primary completion dates in late 2014 or 2015, which includes 13 for non-cancer indications (brodalumab, bimagrumab, bococizumab, MABp1, gevokizumab, dupilumab, sirukumab, sarilumab, tildrakizumab, guselkumab, epratuzumab, combination of actoxumab + bezlotoxumab, romosozumab) and 2 (racotumomab and clivatuzumab tetraxetan) undergoing evaluation as treatments for cancer. In addition to the novel antibody therapeutics mentioned, biosimilar infliximab and biosimilar trastuzumab are ‘antibodies to watch’ in 2015 because of their potential for entry into the US market and regulatory review, respectively.     

关于我国药典重组DNA技术产品总论的思考

自1982年全球第一个生物技术药物“基因重组人胰岛素”、1989年中国批准第一个生物技术药物“重组人干扰素α1b”上市以来,生物技术药物已成为制药业中发展最快、活力最强和技术含量最高的领域。药品的规范生产与质量控制与其安全有效性密切相关,欧美药典中均设有对此类药品质量控制的总体要求。《中国药典》2010版三部已收录包括12类共计34个品种的重组DNA技术产品各论,在进一步保障药品安全、提高质量控制水平的编制指导思想下,《中国药典》2015版拟纳入对重组DNA技术产品的总体要求,本文就相关起草工作从产品涉及范畴、制造与产品检定等方面进行阐述。