Demonstration of Functional Similarity of Proposed Biosimilar ABP 501 to Adalimumab

Real-life data on efficacy and safety of original Adalimumab and biosimilar Adalimumab (ABP 501) in pediatric rheumatic diseases

BACKGROUND

We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of the original product (OP) and biosimilar product (BP) of adalimumab in pediatric rheumatic diseases.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

The study group consisted of patients who had received original or biosimilar adalimumab (ABP 501) therapy for at least 3 months. The patients were divided into uveitis and arthritis groups based on the indication of adalimumab treatment. Assessment of disease activity was performed by Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score in patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis, and by standardization of uveitis nomenclature criteria in patients with uveitis.

RESULTS

The study included 140 patients, of which 87 were treated with OP and 53 with BP. In the arthritis group, 26 (63.4%) and 20 (57.1%) patients reached inactive disease according to JADAS-27 in the original and biosimilar adalimumab groups, respectively. In the uveitis group the mean number of exacerbations throughout the treatment period was 0.84 ± 1.07 in the OP group, and 0.58 ± 0.79 in the BP group. There were 71 treatment-emergent adverse events in the OP group and 38 in the BP group.

CONCLUSION

There was no significant difference between the biosimilar and the original product in efficacy and safety.

Determination of functional similarity of biosimilar H9P2S from an investigational CHO clone with Adalimumab

Biosimilars, which are replicas of innovator pharmaceuticals, constitute the most significant share of biopharmaceutical products. These products are associated with structural and manufacturing complexities and are hence considered as similar to innovator drugs. Adalimumab is a monoclonal antibody that has been approved by the US FDA for blocking TNF-α. Adalimumab, also known as Humira, is preferred over other anti-TNF-α mAbs because of its lower immunogenicity and enhanced clinical efficacy. As cost-effective mAb development is still a challenging area, we developed an in-house stable CHO-K1 cell line for the production of recombinant monoclonal mAb against TNF-α. This clone yielded H9P2S, as a biosimilar against TNF-α, for which several functional assays were conducted to prove its biosimilarity to Adalimumab. Two batches of H9P2S and their subsequent dilutions were compared with Adalimumab. H9P2S and Adalimumab showed highly similar TNF-α binding and neutralizing activities, confirming the suitability of our clone for yielding biosimilar drugs.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13205-022-03384-z.

Implication of Mesenchymal Stem Cells and Their Derivates for Osteochondral Regeneration

Healing of articular cartilage defects presents a challenging issue, due to its regenerative shortcomings. Lacking vascularity and innervation of cartilage and low proliferative potential of chondrocytes are the main reasons for the limited healing potential of articular cartilage. Traditional reparative approaches are limited in their efficiency, hence there is a demand for novel reparative treatments. Mesenchymal stromal cells, preferred for clinical uses, can be readily derived from various sources and have been proven to have a therapeutic effect on cartilage and subchondral bone. Therefore, mesenchymal stromal cells, their derivates, and scaffolds have been utilized in research targeting osteochondral regeneration. The present review aims to comprehensively outline and discuss literature considering this topic published within last 5 years.

Adalimumab and ABP 501 in the Treatment of a Large Cohort of Patients with Inflammatory Arthritis: A Real Life Retrospective Analysis

The recent introduction of ABP 501, an adalimumab biosimilar, in the treatment of rheumatic diseases was supported by a comprehensive comparability exercise with its originator. On the other hand, observational studies comparing adalimumab and ABP 501 in inflammatory arthritis are still lacking. The main aim of this study is to compare the clinical outcomes of the treatment with adalimumab, both the originator and ABP 501, in a large cohort of patients affected by autoimmune arthritis in a real life setting. We retrospectively analysed the baseline characteristics and the retention rate in a cohort of patients who received at least a course of adalimumab (originator or ABP 501) from January 2003 to December 2020. We stratified the study population according to adalimumab use: naive to original (oADA), naive to ABP 501 (bADA) and switched from original to ABP 501 (sADA). The oADA, bADA and sADA groups included, respectively, 724, 129 and 193 patients. In each group, the majority of patients had a diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis. The total observation period was 9805.6 patient-months. The 18-month retentions rate in oADA, bADA and sADA was, respectively, 81.5%, 84.0% and 88.0% (p > 0.05). The factors influencing the adalimumab retention rate were an axial spondylarthritis diagnosis (Hazard Ratio (HR) 0.70; p = 0.04), switch from oADA to ABP 501 (HR 0.53; p = 0.02) and year of prescription (HR 1.04; p = 0.04). In this retrospective study, patients naive to the adalimumab originator and its biosimilar ABP 501 showed the same retention rate. Patients switching from the originator to biosimilar had a higher retention rate, even though not statistically significant, when compared to naive.

Need for a risk-based control strategy for managing glycosylation profile for biosimilar products

INTRODUCTION

Monoclonal antibodies, though a popular class of therapeutics, are complex molecules that are manufactured using complex processes, making it nontrivial to maintain high level of batch-to-batch consistency in product quality. Glycosylation is a posttranslation modification that is widely considered a critical quality attribute (CQA) as its variations are known to impact the Fc effector functions of mAbs. With continuing rise of biosimilars, comparability of these products to the reference product with respect to glycosylation is a topic of immense interest.

AREAS COVERED

In this article, we focus on the various aspects related to this topic including criticality of the various glycosylated forms, as well as comparability of biosimilars with respect to glycosylation.

EXPERT OPINION

We propose that manufacturers should focus on those glycoforms that are present in larger amounts and are known to be critical with respect to the biotherapeutic's safety and efficacy. Such risk-based evaluation of glycoforms and their control would offer an optimal route to biosimilar manufacturers for a cost-effective approach toward product development without compromising on the safety and efficacy characteristics of the therapeutic. For mAbs lacking Fc effector function, devising stringent glycosylation control strategies can be bypassed, thereby simplifying process and product development.

Development of Label-Free Immunoassays as Novel Solutions for the Measurement of Monoclonal Antibody Drugs and Antidrug Antibodies

BACKGROUND

Immunoassays based on label-free technologies (label-free immunoassay [LFIA]) offer an innovative approach to clinical diagnostics and demonstrate great promise for therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of monoclonal antibody (mAb) drugs. An LFIA measures immunocomplex formation in real time and allows for quantification on initial binding rate, which facilitates fast measurement within a few minutes.

METHODS

Based on thin-film interferometry (TFI) technology, open-access LFIAs were developed for the quantification of the mAb drugs adalimumab (ADL) and infliximab (IFX) and for the detection of the antidrug antibodies (ADAs) to the mAb drugs (ADL-ADAs and IFX-ADAs).

RESULTS

The LFIAs for active mAb drugs (ADL and IFX) and for ADAs (ADL-ADAs and IFX-ADAs) were validated. The analytical measurement range (AMR) for both ADL and IFX was from 2 to 100 μg/mL. The AMR for ADL-ADAs was from 5 to 100 μg/mL and for IFX-ADAs was 10 to 100 μg/mL. In the comparison of LFIAs and reporter gene assays, the correlation coefficient was 0.972 for the quantification of ADL and 0.940 for the quantification of IFX. The concordance rate was 90% for the detection of ADL-ADAs and 76% for the detection of IFX-ADAs.

CONCLUSIONS

The LFIAs for active mAb drugs and ADAs were appropriate for the TDM of ADL and IFX. The TFI technology has unique advantages compared with other technologies used for the measurement of mAb drugs. Label-free technologies, especially those allowing for open-access LFIAs, have great potential for clinical diagnostics.

Comparison of glycoprofiles of rituximab versions licensed for sale in India and an analytical approach for quality assessment

Glycosylation affects clinical efficacy and safety; therefore, is a critical quality attribute of therapeutic monoclonal antibodies. Glycans are often labile and complex in patterns, giving rise to macro- and micro-heterogeneity. Recombinant production, diverse geographical locations, associated transportation and storage conditions further compound the problem. Two-way studies comparing glycoprofile of the originator and its given biosimilar are aplenty. However, the extent of analytical variation and similarity in glycoprofile across all approved versions of a drug is hardly explored. Using UHPLC and mass spectrometry, we compared the glycoprofiles of eight rituximab drug samples licensed for sale in India. While the types of glycans were found identical, the abundance of some glycans varied significantly within the tested population. The quality range of glycosylation parameters of the tested sample population differed significantly from the previously established values for US/EU licensed rituximab. As the mean abundance of the 90% of identified glycans falls within ±3SD, the extent of mutual variations amongst tested lots is less significant compared to the extreme deviation from previously established QR limits. Thus, we propose this approach as an orthogonal method to capture glycan variations in licensed versions of mAbs for quality surveillance and in cases where originator samples' are limiting. SIGNIFICANCE: As fluctuation in glycosylation may be of clinical significance, we identify that a one-to-one comparison with originator alone is insufficient in sensing the extent of variations in glycosylation parameters in licensed biosimilars of a given therapeutic mAb. Here we propose that future biosimilarity analysis may include an orthogonal approach of generating an additional combined QR range representing variations across the originator and its biosimilars. The glycosylation profiles of eight rituximab drug samples of different make obtained from the point of sale in India were found identical amongst the tested rituximab versions. However, the QR limits corresponding to important glycosylation parameters differed significantly across all tested samples from the previously established QR limits of US- and EU-licensed rituximab in statistical terms. Such an approach may be useful in defining the true range of glycan variations in licensed versions of therapeutic mAbs.

Efficacy and Safety of Adalimumab Biosimilars: Current Critical Clinical Data in Rheumatoid Arthritis

Adalimumab, as a TNF inhibitor biologic for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, is one of the top-selling drugs worldwide. As its various patents have gradually expired, experiments on its biosimilars are constantly being implemented. In this review, we summarized clinical trials of seven biosimilars currently approved by the FDA and/or EMA for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, namely: ABP 501 (Amjevita/Amgevita/Solymbic), BI 695501 (Cyltezo), SB5 (Imraldi/Hadlima), GP2017 (Hyrimoz/Hefiya/Halimatoz), MSB11022 (Idacio), FKB327 (Hulio), and PF-06410293 (Abrilada). Overall, these biosimilars showed similar efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity to adalimumab. All biosimilar switching trials indicated that switching from adalimumab to a biosimilar does not have a significant impact on efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity.

Type and Extent of Information on (Potentially Critical) Quality Attributes Described in European Public Assessment Reports for Adalimumab Biosimilars

Regulatory approval of biosimilars predominantly relies on biosimilarity assessments of quality attributes (QAs), particularly the potentially critical QAs (pCQAs) that may affect the clinical profile. However, a limited understanding exists concerning how EU regulators reflect the biosimilarity assessments of (pC)QAs in European public assessment reports (EPARs) by different stakeholders. The type and extent of information on QAs and pCQAs in EPARs were evaluated for seven adalimumab biosimilars. Seventy-seven QAs, including 31 pCQAs, were classified and assessed for type (structural and functional attributes) and extent (biosimilarity interpretation and/or test results) of information in EPARs. Reporting on the QAs (35–75%) varied between EPARs, where the most emphasis was placed on pCQAs (65–87%). Functional attributes (54% QAs and 92% pCQAs) were reported more frequently than structural attributes (8% QAs and 22% pCQAs). About 50% (4 structural and 12 functional attributes) of pCQAs were consistently reported in all EPARs. Regulators often provided biosimilarity interpretation (QAs: 83% structural and 80% functional; pCQAs: 81% structural and 78% functional) but rarely include test results (QAs: 1% structural and 9% functional and pCQAs: 3% structural and 9% functional). Minor differences in structural attributes, commonly in glycoforms and charge variants, were often observed in adalimumab biosimilars but did not affect the functions and clinical profile. Despite the variability in reporting QAs in EPARs, the minor observed differences were largely quantitative and not essentially meaningful for the overall conclusion of biosimilarity of the seven adalimumab biosimilars.

Comparison of consistency and complementarity of reporting biosimilar quality attributes between regulatory and scientific communities: An adalimumab case study

Biosimilar approval relies on the comparability of quality attributes (QAs), for which information can be derived from regulatory or scientific communities. Limited information is known about whether these sources are consistent with or complementary to each other. The consistency and complementarity of QA reporting in biosimilarity assessments for adalimumab biosimilars approved by the European Medicines Agency in European public assessment reports (EPARs) and scientific publications was assessed. A classification of 77 different QAs (53 structural and 24 functional attributes) was used to assess the types of and information on QAs reported. Six adalimumab biosimilars were analyzed, for which the number of QAs reported in EPARs and publications varied (range = 47 [61%]-60 [78%]). The proportion of QAs consistently reported in both sources varied (range = 28%-75%) among biosimilars; functional QAs (mean = 21 QAs [88%]; range = 19-23) were more consistently reported than structural QAs (mean = 33 QAs [62%]; range = 27-34). The EPARs frequently reported biosimilarity interpretation without providing test results (9-57 QAs in EPARs versus 0-8 QAs in publications), whereas publications frequently reported both test results and interpretations (13-40 QAs in publications versus 0-3 QAs in EPARs). Both sources provided information on the biosimilarity of QAs in a complementary manner and the same biosimilarity interpretation of test results for reported QAs (mean = 90%; range = 78%-100%), with a small discrepancy in biosimilarity interpretations of a few clinically relevant QAs related to post-translation modifications and biological activity. Comprehensive reporting of QAs can contribute to an improved understanding of the role of structural and functional attributes in establishing biosimilarity and the mechanism of action of biological substances in general.

Adalimumab Biosimilars in the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Systematic Review of the Evidence for Biosimilarity

Although treatment with biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) has significantly improved clinical outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), many patients do not have access to these treatments. As cost-effective alternatives to their reference products (RPs), biosimilars provide an opportunity to increase access to bDMARDs. The European Medicines Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration have detailed pathways for the approval of biosimilars based on establishing the similarity of the biosimilar to the RP in terms of structure and function, pharmacokinetics (PK), efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity. A number of biosimilars of adalimumab, infliximab, etanercept, and rituximab RPs have been approved in the United States and/or European Union. This article is focused on the seven adalimumab biosimilars. A review of the data for the biosimilars FKB327, ABP 501, BI 695501, GP2017, MSB11022, PF-06410293, and SB5 confirm that these products are highly similar to the adalimumab RP with regard to structure, physicochemical and biological properties, PK, safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy in the treatment of RA and other chronic immune-mediated, inflammatory conditions. Data from several switching studies showed no changes in efficacy, safety, trough serum drug concentration, or immunogenicity between the biosimilars and their RP.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT02260791, NCT02405780, NCT01970475, NCT02137226, NCT02045979, NCT02744755, NCT02144714, NCT02167139, NCT03014947, NCT02114931, NCT02640612, NCT02167139, NCT03052322, NCT02480153. EudraCT numbers: 2012-005140-23, 2012-000785-37, 2013-003722-84, 2015-000579-28, 2014-002879-29, 2014-000662-21, 2013-004654-13, 2015-002634-41, 2014-005229-11, 2016-002852-26, 2014-000352-29.

In vitro functional characterization of biosimilar therapeutic antibodies

The key factor in successful development and marketing of biosimilar antibodies is a deep understanding of their critical quality attributes and the ability to control them. Comprehensive functional characterization is therefore at the heart of the process and is a crucial part of regulatory requirements. Establishment of a scientifically sound molecule-specific functional in vitro assay panel requires diligent planning and high flexibility in order to respond to both regulatory requirements and the ever-changing demands relevant to the different stages of the development and production process. Relevance of the chosen assays to the in vivo mechanism of action is of key importance to the stepwise evidence-based demonstration of biosimilarity. Use of a sound interdisciplinary approach and orthogonal state-of-the-art techniques is also unavoidable for gaining in-depth understanding of the biosimilar candidate. The aim of the present review is to give a snapshot on the methodic landscape as depicted by the available literature discussing the in vitro techniques used for the functional characterization of approved biosimilar therapeutic antibodies. Emerging hot topics of the field and relevant structure-function relationships are also highlighted.

Effectiveness and safety of switching to adalimumab biosimilar ABP 501 in Crohn's disease

We read with great interest the article "Effectiveness and safety of adalimumab biosimilar ABP 501 in Crohn's disease: an observational study" by Ribaldone et al., which was recently published in your journal. The authors report the first real-life study of the adalimumab biosimilar ABP 501 in Crohn's disease (CD). The study investigated the short-term effectiveness and safety of ABP 501 in 87 patients with CD, 25 patients naïve to adalimumab and 62 switched from the adalimumab originator. A meaningful proportion of CD patients treated with ABP 501 showed clinical benefit with a satisfactory safety profile until the end of follow-up.

Belgian IBD Research Group [BIRD] Position Statement 2019 on the Use of Adalimumab Biosimilars in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases

The emergence of biosimilars is generally considered as an opportunity to guarantee accessibility to affordable treatments and to enhance financial sustainability of national health systems. Since 2017, five biosimilars of adalimumab were approved by the European Medicines Agency [EMA] for use in inflammatory bowel disease: ABP 510, SB5, GP2017, FKB327, and MSB11022. In this position statement, the available efficacy and safety data of the different adalimumab biosimilars in immune-mediated inflammatory diseases are summarised. Furthermore, the Belgian IBD research group [BIRD] formulates statements concerning the use of adalimumab biosimilars in inflammatory bowel disease.

Quality by Design-Based Assessment for Analytical Similarity of Adalimumab Biosimilar HLX03 to Humira®

Quality by design (QbD) is an efficient but challenging approach for the development of biosimilar due to the complex relationship among process, quality, and efficacy. Here, the analytical similarity of adalimumab biosimilar HLX03 to Humira® was successfully established following a QbD quality study. Quality target product profile (QTPP) of HLX03 was first generated according to the public available information and initial characterization of 3 batches of Humira®. The critical quality attributes (CQAs) were then identified through risk assessment according to impact of each quality attribute on efficacy and safety. The anticipated range for each CQA was derived from similarity acceptance range and/or the corresponding regulatory guidelines. Finally, a panel of advanced and orthogonal physicochemical and functional tests and comparison of 6 batches of HLX03 and 10 batches of the reference standard demonstrated high similarity of HLX03 to Humira®, except for slightly lower percentage of high mannosylated glycans (%HM) in HLX03 which had no effect on FcγRIII binding and antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity (ADCC) activity in human peripheral blood mononuclear cell (PBMC). All above demonstrated the feasibility and efficiency of QbD-based similarity assessment of a biosimilar monoclonal antibody (mAb).

A Review of the Totality of Evidence Supporting the Development of the First Adalimumab Biosimilar ABP 501

ABP 501 [United States: AMJEVITA™ (adalimumab-atto); European Union: AMGEVITA® (adalimumab)] is the first approved biosimilar to adalimumab [reference product (RP)], a monoclonal antibody (mAb) targeting tumor necrosis factor-alfa (TNF-α). ABP 501 has received approval for use in indications that adalimumab RP is approved for, except those protected by regulatory exclusivity. A systematic step-wise totality of evidence (TOE) approach formed the basis of approval of ABP 501; this involved methodical accumulation of scientifically robust comparative data supporting similarity in analytical, preclinical, and clinical [pharmacokinetics (PK)], efficacy, safety and immunogenicity) evaluations. As a foundational first step, comprehensive analytical assessments demonstrated that ABP 501 is structurally and functionally similar to adalimumab RP in critical quality attributes. Preclinical assessments confirmed similar activity in assessing mechanisms of action and toxicology. Clinical evaluation included a phase 1 PK equivalence study in healthy subjects and two comparative phase 3 studies that evaluated ABP 501 and adalimumab RP in two sensitive patient populations, plaque psoriasis (PsO) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The PK profiles of ABP 501 and adalimumab RP were similar in healthy subjects as well as patients with PsO and RA. The pivotal phase 3 study in patients with PsO demonstrated that ABP 501 was clinically similar to adalimumab RP in terms of efficacy, safety and immunogenicity in both the primary and transition phases. The pivotal phase 3 study in patients with RA also established clinical similarity between ABP 501 and adalimumab RP; an open-label extension of this study demonstrated sustained efficacy over an additional 72 weeks, with no new safety or immunogenicity concerns with ABP 501 treatment. Overall, the TOE supported the conclusion that ABP 501 is highly similar to adalimumab RP and provided scientific justification for extrapolation to all the approved indications of adalimumab RP not protected by exclusivities.Funding: Amgen Inc.

Biosimilars of Adalimumab in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Are we Ready for that?

Introduction:

Biosimilars present a considerable potential to reduce costs related to clinical management allowing health-care providers to reinvest this money, leading to a wider access to an effective biological treatment with monoclonal antibodies (mAb). Infliximab biosimilars have already been incorporated in daily clinical practice and are currently used in all indications for which the reference product (RP) was approved.

Areas covered:

In the next few years, also adalimumab biosimilars will become available for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). In fact, several of them (ABP501, BI 695501, GP2017, and SB5) have been approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) with the same indications of the reference product (Humira ®). Initial preclinical data proved a strong similarity between all biosimilars and the RP. Moreover, phase 3 studies in rheumatoid arthritis and psoriasis showed no differences in terms of efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity. Data on IBD patients are urgently needed.

Expert opinion:

Biosimilars of adalimumab showed equivalent clinical efficacy to the RP in other immunemediated diseases. However, defining the ideal patient’s profile to receive or to be switched to a biosimilar, choosing one biosimilar vs. another, or cross-switching among biosimilars, will become the next challenge in IBD.

An open-label extension study to demonstrate long-term safety and efficacy of ABP 501 in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

BACKGROUND

ABP 501 was evaluated in a phase 3 single-arm, open-label extension (OLE) study to collect additional safety and efficacy data in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

Subjects completing the final visit in the parent phase 3 randomized, double-blind, controlled equivalence study comparing the efficacy and safety of the biosimilar ABP 501 with adalimumab reference product (RP) were enrolled in this open-label extension (OLE) study. All subjects received 40 mg ABP 501 every other week for 68 weeks. Key safety endpoints included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), and anti-drug antibody (ADA) incidences. Efficacy endpoints included ACR20 (at least 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology core set measurements from baseline) and Disease Activity Score 28-joint count C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) change from baseline.

RESULTS

Among 466/467 patients treated with ABP 501, 229 transitioned from the ABP 501 arm of the parent study (ABP 501/ABP 501) and 237 from the adalimumab RP arm (RP/ABP 501); 412/467 (88.2%) patients completed the study. The overall TEAE incidence was 63.7% (297/466); grade ≥ 3 TEAE incidence was 9.0% (42/466). The incidence of TEAEs leading to discontinuation of investigational product was 3.6% (17/466). The SAE incidence was 9.9% (46/466). Overall, 18.2% (85/466) of subjects developed binding ADAs and 6.9% (32/466) developed neutralizing ADAs in the OLE study. The ACR20 response rate was 73.3% (340/464 subjects) at OLE baseline, and 78.8% (327/415 subjects) at week 70 of the OLE study. The overall mean DAS28-CRP change from the parent study baseline was - 2.25 at the OLE study baseline (n = 440), - 2.36 at week 4 (n = 463), - 2.41 at week 24 (n = 450), - 2.55 at week 48 (n = 433), and - 2.60 at week 70 (n = 412). Efficacy was maintained throughout the study.

CONCLUSIONS

Efficacy previously demonstrated in the parent study was maintained in this OLE study with no new safety findings. Long-term safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy were similar in the ABP 501/ABP 501 and RP/ABP 501 groups. The single switch from RP to ABP 501 did not impact immunogenicity.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrial.gov, NCT02114931.

Bioequivalence studies with anti-TNF biosimilars

Introduction: Biosimilars, as defined by the European Medicines Agency, have been used in Europe since 2006. The landscape was considerably expanded when the first biosimilar of a monoclonal was approved and introduced in the European market. CT-P13 was developed by Celltrion as an infliximab biosimilar in 2013, not without controversy. As these complex molecules cannot be completely identical, some experts, clinicians, and even patients were skeptical regarding the real bioequivalence of the drugs. Currently, several new infliximab and adalimumab biosimilars are available or will reach the market in a few months. Areas covered: Our goal is to review, mainly from a clinical perspective, the available evidence for bioequivalence of anti-TNF biosimilars. We aim to take into account not only preclinical studies, mostly done for regulatory issues, but also data from clinical studies. Expert opinion: We can conclude that bioequivalence with originator is well demonstrated in those drugs which have followed European Medicines Agency regulatory pathways. Switching from originator to biosimilar appears safe for all indications. However, there are few data available for switching from one biosimilar to another, or for complete interchangeability. Prospective studies and strict pharmacovigilance are recommended.

The transient production of anti-TNF-α antibody Adalimumab and a comparison of its characterization to the biosimilar Cinorra

Recombinant antibodies have emerged over the last few decades as the fastest growing class of therapeutic proteins for autoimmune diseases. Post-translation modifications of antibodies produced by human cell lines are highly consistent with those existing in natural human proteins and this is a major advantage of utilizing these cell lines. Cinorra is a biosimilar form of the antibody Adalimumab, which is an antagonist of TNF-α used for the treatment of autoimmune diseases. Adalimumab and Cinorra were produced by stable expression from CHO cells. The aim of this study was to select HEK cells as a host for producing Adalimumab to reveal whether the antibody produced by this human-derived cell line has similar characterization to Cinorra. Adalimumab was transiently produced in HEK-293T cells, characterized and analyzed for its properties. Circular dichroism spectroscopy confirmed a strong structural similarity of the expressed antibody with Cinorra. Likewise its binding activity and kinetic affinity to TNF-α (EC₅₀ = 416.5 ng/ml, KD = 3.89 E-10 M,) were highly similar to that of Cinorra (EC₅₀ = 421.2 ng/ml and KD = 3.34 E-10 M,). Additionally there was near identical neutralization of TNF-α-mediated cellular cytotoxicity (IC₅₀ of the expressed = 4.93 nM; IC₅₀ of Cinorra = 4.5 nM). Results indicate that Adalimumab produced by HEK-293T cells possesses a similarly efficient function and biological activity to Cinorra. Consequently, human-derived host cells with human post-translational modifications might potentially provide a basis for the development of Adalimumab with pharmaceutical properties for research and therapeutic use.

Review of Biosimilar Trials and Data on Adalimumab in Rheumatoid Arthritis

Purpose of Review

Adalimumab is one of the top-selling drugs worldwide. Its imminent patent expiration has seen the emergence of numerous biosimilar agents. In this article, we recap the evidence from bio-originator trials in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) to provide context for a critical review of biosimilar trial data.

Recent Findings

Currently, three adalimumab biosimilars are approved in Europe and/or the USA: Amgen’s ABP 501 (AMJEVITA/Solymbic), Boehringer Ingelheim’s BI 695501 (Cyltezo) and Samsung Bioepis’s SB5 (Imraldi). All three agents met their pre-specified equivalence criteria. Subtle differences in adverse events and clinical responses between the reference and biosimilar products were noted.

Summary

The introduction of adalimumab biosimilars will offer exciting opportunities in improving treatment access and increasing treatment options for RA and other licensed indications. Real-world data will further provide assurances on efficacy as well as safety.

Scientific and statistical considerations in evaluating the analytical similarity of ABP 501 to adalimumab

Analytical similarity is the foundation of the totality-of-evidence-based approach for demonstrating that a proposed biosimilar is highly similar to a reference product. This review uses analytical similarity assessment of ABP 501, the first approved adalimumab biosimilar, as a case study to highlight considerations necessary to demonstrate analytical similarity. Similarity assessments start with risk-ranking the critical quality attributes based on scientific understanding of how they impact safety, efficacy, immunogenicity and/or pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics. Testing strategy and evaluation approaches are designed with the understanding of the analytical methods and their capabilities. Statistical considerations are used to establish objective assessment criteria. The result is a scientifically justified, objective analytical similarity assessment that demonstrates that a proposed biosimilar is structurally and functionally similar to a reference product.

Consensus-based recommendations for the use of biosimilars to treat rheumatological diseases

The study aimed to develop evidence-based recommendations regarding the evaluation and use of biosimilars to treat rheumatological diseases. The task force comprised an expert group of specialists in rheumatology, dermatology and gastroenterology, and pharmacologists, patients and a regulator from ten countries. Four key topics regarding biosimilars were identified through a process of discussion and consensus. Using a Delphi process, specific questions were then formulated to guide a systematic literature review. Relevant English-language publications through November 2016 were searched systematically for each topic using Medline; selected papers and pertinent reviews were examined for additional relevant references; and abstracts presented at the 2015 and 2016 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) annual scientific meetings were searched for those about biosimilars. The experts used evidence obtained from these studies to develop a set of overarching principles and consensus recommendations. The level of evidence and grade of recommendation were determined for each. By the search strategy, 490 references were identified. Of these, 29 full-text papers were included in the systematic review. Additionally, 20 abstracts were retrieved from the ACR and EULAR conference abstract databases. Five overarching principles and eight consensus recommendations were generated, encompassing considerations regarding clinical trials, immunogenicity, extrapolation of indications, switching between bio-originators and biosimilars and among biosimilars, and cost. The level of evidence and grade of recommendation for each varied according to available published evidence. Five overarching principles and eight consensus recommendations regarding the evaluation and use of biosimilars to treat rheumatological diseases were developed using research-based evidence and expert opinion.

Biosimilars in Dermatology - theory becomes reality

Biosimilars are biological medicines that are analogues of a specific reference product. Biosimilars of the tumor necrosis factor alpha inhibitors infliximab and etanercept are already approved and available for dermatological indications. Regulatory agencies require in-depth analysis of physicochemical and functional properties of these highly complex molecules as well as clinical data on their similarity regarding efficacy and safety in at least one clinical trial in a sensitive and homogeneous population. Thus, it must be shown that biosimilars are essentially the same as the originator product if they are to be licensed in regulated drug markets. As a consequence, these data are extrapolated from one molecule (the originator) to another (biosimilar) resulting in an approval that includes the same indications as the originator product. While extrapolation is well accepted and regulated, clear recommendations regarding the interchangeability of originators and biosimilars as well as data on multiple consecutive switching are missing. Current scientific knowledge does not argue against the use of biosimilars for dermatological indications, but sequential switching of biosimilars should be considered carefully. To increase confidence and enhance evidence for biosimilars, accurate documentation of the specific products given to each patient is essential and should preferably be included in patient registries.

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.

Efficacy and safety of the biosimilar ABP 501 compared with adalimumab in patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis: a randomised, double-blind, phase III equivalence study

OBJECTIVES

ABP 501 is a Food and Drug Administration-approved biosimilar to adalimumab; structural, functional and pharmacokinetic evaluations have shown that the two are highly similar. We report results from a phase III study comparing efficacy, safety and immunogenicity between ABP 501 and adalimumab.

METHODS

In this randomised, double-blind, active comparator-controlled, 26-week equivalence study, patients with moderate to severe active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) despite methotrexate were randomised (1:1) to ABP 501 or adalimumab (40 mg) every 2 weeks. Primary endpoint was risk ratio (RR) of ACR20 between groups at week 24. Primary hypothesis that the treatments were equivalent would be confirmed if the 90% CI for RR of ACR20 at week 24 fell between 0.738 and 1.355, demonstrating that ABP 501 is similar to adalimumab. Secondary endpoints included Disease Activity Score 28-joint count-C reactive protein (DAS28-CRP). Safety was assessed via adverse events (AEs) and laboratory evaluations. Antidrug antibodies were assessed to determine immunogenicity.

RESULTS

A total of 526 patients were randomised (n=264, ABP 501; n=262 adalimumab) and 494 completed the study. ACR20 response at week 24 was 74.6% (ABP 501) and 72.4% (adalimumab). At week 24, the RR of ACR20 (90% CI) between groups was 1.039 (0.954, 1.133), confirming the primary hypothesis. Changes from baseline in DAS28-CRP, ACR50 and ACR70 were similar. There were no clinically meaningful differences in AEs and laboratory abnormalities. A total of 38.3% (ABP 501) and 38.2% (adalimumab) of patients tested positive for binding antidrug antibodies.

CONCLUSIONS

Results from this study demonstrate that ABP 501 is similar to adalimumab in clinical efficacy, safety and immunogenicity in patients with moderate to severe RA.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT01970475; Results.

Physicochemical and Biological Characterization of the Proposed Biosimilar Tocilizumab

HS628 has been developed as a proposed biosimilar product of originator tocilizumab (Actemra®). An extensive physicochemical and biological characterization was conducted to assess similarity between HS628 and originator tocilizumab. The amino acid sequence was shown to be identical between HS628 and originator tocilizumab. The higher order structure was found to be indistinguishable from originator tocilizumab. Concerning purity and heterogeneity, HS628 was demonstrated to have similar posttranslational modifications, charge heterogeneity, size heterogeneity, and glycosylation to originator tocilizumab. Moreover, HS628 exhibited highly similar binding affinity and antiproliferative activity as well as capability of inhibiting STAT3 phosphorylation compared to originator tocilizumab. Taken together, HS628 can be considered as a highly similar molecule to originator tocilizumab in terms of physicochemical and biological properties.

A randomised, single-blind, single-dose, three-arm, parallel-group study in healthy subjects to demonstrate pharmacokinetic equivalence of ABP 501 and adalimumab

OBJECTIVE

To demonstrate pharmacokinetic (PK) similarity of biosimilar candidate ABP 501 relative to adalimumab reference product from the USA and European Union (EU) and evaluate safety, tolerability and immunogenicity of ABP 501.

METHODS

Randomised, single-blind, single-dose, three-arm, parallel-group study; healthy subjects were randomised to receive ABP 501 (n=67), adalimumab (USA) (n=69) or adalimumab (EU) (n=67) 40 mg subcutaneously. Primary end points were area under the serum concentration-time curve from time 0 extrapolated to infinity (AUCinf) and the maximum observed concentration (Cmax). Secondary end points included safety and immunogenicity.

RESULTS

AUCinf and Cmax were similar across the three groups. Geometrical mean ratio (GMR) of AUCinf was 1.11 between ABP 501 and adalimumab (USA), and 1.04 between ABP 501 and adalimumab (EU). GMR of Cmax was 1.04 between ABP 501 and adalimumab (USA) and 0.96 between ABP 501 and adalimumab (EU). The 90% CIs for the GMRs of AUCinf and Cmax were within the prespecified standard PK equivalence criteria of 0.80 to 1.25. Treatment-related adverse events were mild to moderate and were reported for 35.8%, 24.6% and 41.8% of subjects in the ABP 501, adalimumab (USA) and adalimumab (EU) groups; incidence of antidrug antibodies (ADAbs) was similar among the study groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Results of this study demonstrated PK similarity of ABP 501 with adalimumab (USA) and adalimumab (EU) after a single 40-mg subcutaneous injection. No new safety signals with ABP 501 were identified. The safety and tolerability of ABP 501 was similar to the reference products, and similar ADAb rates were observed across the three groups.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

EudraCT number 2012-000785-37; Results.

Extrapolation and Interchangeability of Infliximab and Adalimumab in Inflammatory Bowel Disease

OPINION STATEMENT

Infliximab and adalimumab biosimilars have been approved by the FDA and European Medicines Agency and have already been introduced to the international market. Availability into the US market is imminent. Biosimilars are highly similar to the reference biologic product but should not be referred to as, nor equated with, generic medications as no two biosimilars can ever be identical. Regulatory pathways for biosimilar approval consider the totality of evidence for biosimilar approvals, but the preponderance of development relies on analytic and functional testing and allows extrapolation between indications to reduce the financial burden of completing comparative clinical trials for each indication. Neither CT-P13 (infliximab biosimilar) nor ABP 501 (adalimumab biosimilar) was clinically tested in patients with inflammatory bowel disease prior to being submitted for approval by regulatory agencies. The body of available evidence suggests that these drugs will perform similarly to their originators. The pathway for interchangeability of biosimilars has yet to be clarified by federal regulators and currently remains determined by states within the USA. However, preliminary data suggests that switching from originator to biosimilar is safe with minimal differences in clinical efficacy.

Assessing Analytical Similarity of Proposed Amgen Biosimilar ABP 501 to Adalimumab

BACKGROUND

ABP 501 is being developed as a biosimilar to adalimumab. Comprehensive comparative analytical characterization studies have been conducted and completed.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to assess analytical similarity between ABP 501 and two adalimumab reference products (RPs), licensed by the United States Food and Drug Administration (adalimumab [US]) and authorized by the European Union (adalimumab [EU]), using state-of-the-art analytical methods.

METHODS

Comprehensive analytical characterization incorporating orthogonal analytical techniques was used to compare products. Physicochemical property comparisons comprised the primary structure related to amino acid sequence and post-translational modifications including glycans; higher-order structure; primary biological properties mediated by target and receptor binding; product-related substances and impurities; host-cell impurities; general properties of the finished drug product, including strength and formulation; subvisible and submicron particles and aggregates; and forced thermal degradation.

RESULTS

ABP 501 had the same amino acid sequence and similar post-translational modification profiles compared with adalimumab RPs. Primary structure, higher-order structure, and biological activities were similar for the three products. Product-related size and charge variants and aggregate and particle levels were also similar. ABP 501 had very low residual host-cell protein and DNA. The finished ABP 501 drug product has the same strength with regard to protein concentration and fill volume as adalimumab RPs. ABP 501 and the RPs had a similar stability profile both in normal storage and thermal stress conditions.

CONCLUSION

Based on the comprehensive analytical similarity assessment, ABP 501 was found to be similar to adalimumab with respect to physicochemical and biological properties.