Regulatory considerations in oncologic biosimilar drug development

The Global Landscape of Manufacturers of Follow-on Biologics: An Overview of Five Major Biosimilar Markets and 15 Countries

BACKGROUND

Current knowledge is limited about which manufacturers are active in the global field of biopharmaceutical product development and how many unique follow-on biologics are approved in global markets.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to provide a cross-sectional overview of manufacturers of follow-on biologics approved in 15 large countries from different regions of the world, as well as in five major biosimilar markets with long established biosimilar frameworks.

METHODS

We screened national drug databases to identify follow-on biologics and their manufacturers approved in 15 countries in Asia, Africa, Latin America and the rest of the world, as well as five major biosimilar markets: the European Union (including the UK), USA, Canada, Australia and Japan.

RESULTS

This study identified a total of 304 follow-on biologics from different manufacturers for 18 active substance classes included in the analysis. Of these, 67 products are approved as biosimilars in at least one of the five major biosimilar markets. A total of 140 (46%) follow-on biologics are manufactured in India or China, of which only eight (seven from India and one from China) are approved as biosimilars in any of the five major biosimilar markets. This study found that the majority of follow-on biologics are only approved in the respective country of manufacturing. A small number of manufacturers, primarily from India and Argentina, supply their products to other regions in the world. As some countries have less stringent regulatory approaches for biosimilars, or have only recently implemented biosimilar guidance in line with World Health Organization standards, follow-on biologics could have been approved that would not be considered biosimilars according to the World Health Organization standards.

CONCLUSIONS

With this study, we try to contribute to discussions on creating more transparency about global approvals of follow-on biologics and promoting access to high-quality biosimilars in countries around the world.

[Knowledge and perceptions of biosimilar medicines by health professionals in Tunisia]

INTRODUCTION

Biosimilar drugs occupy a strategic place in the global pharmaceutical market. However, there are brakes on their use. The objective of our study is to assess the knowledge and perceptions of healthcare professionals on biosimilar drugs in a developing country.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This is a prospective survey via an anonymous 18-question multiple-choice questionnaire developed and published online through the "Google Forms" application over a period of one month. This questionnaire is intended for Tunisian pharmacists and doctors of all ranks.

RESULTS

A total of 240 health professionals responded to this questionnaire, including 158 pharmacists and 82 physicians. Among them, 73 are not informed about the biosimilar drugs and were excluded from the rest of the questionnaire. Questions regarding the definition of biosimilar drugs and their differences from generic drugs obtained the best rate of 76 % of correct answers. In contrast, the questions that generated the most errors mainly concerned the regulation of biosimilar drugs. Participants felt that they were under-informed about biosimilar drugs in 65 % of the cases. In addition, 92 % were in favor of the development of this class of drugs and 85 % estimated significant to very significant savings related to their use.

CONCLUSION

Our study confirms the lack of information of pharmacists and physicians on biosimilar drugs. Sensitization of healthcare professionals on the safety and effectiveness of the use of these drugs seems to be necessary in order to allow their development.

A randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, single‑dose, pharmacokinetic bioequivalence study of INTP24 and bevacizumab in healthy adult men

PURPOSE

To demonstrate pharmacokinetic (PK) equivalence and to compare safety of INTP24 (bevacizumab biosimilar) with that of US-bevacizumab and EU-bevacizumab in healthy male subjects.

METHODS

In this randomized, parallel-group, double-blind study, male subjects were randomized (1:1:1) to receive a single 1 mg/kg intravenous infusion of either INTP24, US-bevacizumab, or EU-bevacizumab. The primary endpoint was area under serum concentration (AUC) from time zero to infinity (AUC_0-∞). Secondary endpoints were AUC from time zero to last quantifiable concentration (AUC_0-t), maximum concentration (C_max), other PK parameters, immunogenicity, and safety.

RESULTS

A total of 117 subjects (39/group) were dosed; 113 subjects (37, 37, and 39 in INPT24, US-bevacizumab, and EU-bevacizumab groups, respectively) completed the study and were included in the PK analysis. Baseline demographics were similar across the three groups. The 90% confidence intervals (CI) of geometric mean ratios (GMR) of ln-transformed AUC_0-∞ and C_max of INTP24 relative to US-bevacizumab and EU-bevacizumab were within the acceptance range of 80%-125% (INTP24 vs. US-bevacizumab, 96.55-112.51% and 99.16-112.79%: INTP24 vs. EU-bevacizumab, 94.84-110.17% and 96.32-109.28%). The 90% CIs of GMRs for AUC_0-t was also within 80-125% for INTP24 vs. US-bevacizumab and INTP24 vs. EU-bevacizumab. Safety and immunogenicity profiles were similar across the three groups. Twenty-one (17.95%) subjects experienced at least one AE and 9 (7.69%) were ADA positive. One treatment-related serious adverse event (varicella zoster infection) was reported in INTP24 group.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated PK bioequivalence of INTP24 to US-bevacizumab and EU-bevacizumab in healthy male subjects and showed similar safety and immunogenicity profiles across the treatment groups.

Safety concerns of biosimilar hormone products

BACKGROUND

Currently, biotherapeutic medicines are the most effective options for the treatment of many severe and chronic diseases. For faster market entry of biotherapeutic products and their cost reduction, the principles of "biosimilarity" have been developed. Development and licensing of biosimilars is allowed only after the end of patent exclusivity of the original preparation period.

PURPOSE

Characteristics of the main safety parameters of biosimilar hormone preparations licensed by EMA.

METHODS

This paper analyzes the results demonstrating the similarities and differences between biosimilar and reference hormone products indicated in the EPAR (public assessment report) for the examination of materials presented for the licensing of biosimilar products.

RESULTS

During the development of biosimilar hormone medicines, differences in the glycosylation profile between biosimilar and reference preparations are revealed. As biotherapeutical preparations are produced by cells, the differences in glycosylation profile between biosimilar and referent preparation are predictable. While carrying out clinical studies, a high similarity of biosimilar and reference product effectiveness is shown, but some differences between them in the safety profile are revealed.

CONCLUSIONS

The study of biosimilar product safety has shown the necessity of further improvement in safety and standard approaches for the assessment of the immunogenicity of biosimilar products.

Perception of hematologists and oncologists about the biosimilars: A prospective Tunisian study based on a survey

INTRODUCTION

Biosimilar drugs have significantly shaken the global pharmaceutical market through a better access to the health care services. The aim of this study is to establish a state of play in Tunisia based on the knowledge and perceptions of doctors on biosimilars in order to identify the problems related to these drugs and to propose solutions for improvement.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In our study, we conducted a prospective, descriptive survey using a questionnaire, destinated to oncologists and hematologists with different grades, from both public and private sectors and from several regions. The questions focused on physicians' general knowledge of biosimilars and their comparison with reference on safety, quality, efficacy, and indication. Finally, we explored the proportion of physicians who are favorable to the policy encouraging biosimilar use.

RESULTS

One hundred and seven doctors among 150 answered the questionnaire; 57% were oncologists and 43% were hematologists. About one over five physicians defines biosimilar as a chemical drug. About 29% do not differentiate between a biosimilar and a generic one. A percentage of 68 believe that a biosimilar can have all the indications of its reference following complementary clinical studies. On the other side, 68.2% support the policy encouraging these drugs. Last, only 3.7% of the practitioners believe that they are well informed about biosimilars.

DISCUSSION

Our results are comparable to other surveys described in the literature. However, this is the first study that targets oncologists and hematologists specifically.

CONCLUSION

Our study showed a lack of information from oncologists and hematologists about biosimilars in Tunisia. Thus, health authorities should carry out training programs on biosimilars and introduce clear and effective legislation in order to allow better access to health care services.

Comparative immunogenicity assessment of biosimilars

The first anticancer biosimilars have entered clinical use, with many others under clinical development. Like all biologics, biosimilars may elicit unwanted immune responses that can significantly impact clinical efficacy and safety. Head-to-head immunogenicity assessment of biosimilars and their reference biologics should, therefore, be a critical component of a biosimilar's clinical development program. Various bioanalytical platforms may be used to detect and characterize immune responses, each having relative strengths and weaknesses. To fully recognize the clinical relevance of such data, regulators must be able to interpret immunogenicity results in an assay-specific context as well as in perspective of clinical pharmacology, efficacy and safety. Herein, we discuss current challenges imposed by global regulatory requirements for immunogenicity assessment of biosimilars.

The biosimilars journey: current status and ongoing challenges

Biosimilar products are already approved and marketed in several countries. The Food and Drug Administration has approved ten different biosimilars, and the European Medicines Agency has approved 40. Even though this scenario has provided important experience with biosimilar products, there are still challenges and unanswered questions. Up to now, a good amount of knowledge has been gathered in order to support the importance of the totality of evidence and the construction of a biosimilarity exercise for regulatory approval. In addition, the extrapolation of indications has been proved viable when a careful analysis is performed. The models for clinical trials and the use of the most sensible populations have been extensively discussed, and there is apparent homogeneity in manufacturer choices for study designs. However, some challenges remain. The lack of regulatory harmony, especially concerning naming, the marketed intended copies, the interchangeability, and the biosimilars in orphan diseases are some of those and are the focus of discussion in this review.

Developing the Totality of Evidence for Biosimilars: Regulatory Considerations and Building Confidence for the Healthcare Community

Biosimilars are highly similar versions of approved branded biologics. Unlike generics, they are not exact replicas of reference products. Minor differences between biosimilars and reference products in some aspects are expected; likewise, biosimilar products will differ from each other. The objective of this review is to discuss the challenges associated with the development and approval of biosimilar products that are unique because of their complex structure and specialized manufacturing processes, which can impact not only efficacy but also immunogenicity and safety. Regulatory guidelines recommend a totality-of-evidence approach focused on stepwise development that involves demonstration of structural similarity and functional equivalence. Structural and functional characteristics of the proposed biosimilar are compared with the reference product; similarity of these functions forms the foundation of the biosimilar development program, including potential animal studies, a human pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics equivalence study, and a clinical study to confirm similar efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity. The clinical study should be performed in a sensitive population using appropriate endpoints to allow detection of any clinically meaningful differences between the biosimilar and the reference product if such differences exist. In conclusion, development of biosimilars is focused on the minimization of potential differences between the proposed biosimilar and reference product and the establishment of a robust manufacturing process to consistently produce a high-quality biosimilar product.

ABP 980: promising trastuzumab biosimilar for HER2-positive breast cancer

INTRODUCTION

Approval of the HER2-targeted antibody trastuzumab dramatically improved outcomes for patients with HER2-positive breast cancer. Multiple trastuzumab biosimilars, including ABP 980, are in clinical development. Biosimilars are not identical to the reference biologic, but exhibit equivalence and safety in analytical and clinical studies. Areas covered: A brief introduction to trastuzumab, overview of trastuzumab biosimilars, and detailed review of ABP 980 preclinical and clinical studies are included. We searched PubMed and 2016-2017 ASCO and ESMO conference proceedings for 'ABP 980' or 'trastuzumab biosimilar'. 'ABP 980 and breast cancer' or 'trastuzumab biosimilar and breast cancer' were used to search clinicaltrials.gov for phase III trials. Analytical studies of ABP 980 pharmacokinetics (PK) or pharmacodynamics (PD), phase I studies of ABP 980 safety and PK/PD, and phase III studies of clinical efficacy vs trastuzumab are included. Expert opinion: Questions remain regarding long-term impact of biosimilars on overall healthcare costs, insurance coverage of multiple approved biosimilars, and extensive clinical safety and efficacy follow-up. By producing a competitive market, trastuzumab biosimilars are anticipated to improve access to standard of care therapies, although real-world evidence remains to be obtained. Increased global access to HER2-targeted therapy may eventually alter the landscape of breast cancer and survival rates.

Identification of multiple serine to asparagine sequence variation sites in an intended copy product of LUCENTIS® by mass spectrometry

Patent expiration of first-generation biologics and the high cost of innovative biologics are 2 drivers for the development of biosimilar products. There are, however, technical challenges to the production of exact copies of such large molecules. In this study, we performed a head-to-head comparison between the originator anti-VEGF-A Fab product LUCENTIS® (ranibizumab) and an intended copy product using an integrated analytical approach. While no differences could be observed using size-exclusion chromatography, capillary electrophoresis-sodium dodecyl sulfate and potency assays, different acidic peaks were identified with cation ion exchange chromatography and capillary zone electrophoresis. Further investigation of the intact Fab, subunits and primary sequence with mass spectrometry demonstrated the presence of a modified light chain variant in the intended copy product batches. This variant was characterized with a mass increase of 27.01 Da compared to the originator sequence and its abundance was estimated in the range of 6–9% of the intended copy product light chain. MS/MS spectra interrogation confirmed that this modification relates to a serine to asparagine sequence variant found in the intended copy product light chain. We demonstrated that the integration of high-resolution and sensitive orthogonal technologies was beneficial to assess the similarity of an originator and an intended copy product.

Biologicals and biosimilars: safety issues in Europe

INTRODUCTION

Medicinal products of a biological origin are approved by the EMA at a centralized level. However, there is no harmonization about their use in Europe. The current regulation referring to the safety of biological medicinal products and biosimilars in Europe has been identified. The safety associated with medicinal products of a biological origin is assured by the pharmacovigilance system, which has evolved, but doesn't yet incorporate all of the specific information from this market segment, namely that related to the identification of drugs, and its use - including the prescription and dispensing, given the possibility of interchangeability and substitution. The terminology, information systems and traceability systems aren't entirely appropriate to ensure the safety requirements for therapy with medicinal products of a biological origin. Areas covered: This article aims to identify the prescription and dispensing profiles of reference biological medicines and biosimilars in the EU, and the determinants that support their safe use. Expert opinion: The European pharmacovigilance system must evolve to ensure the safety along all of the biologicals' therapeutic cycle. It must consider the safety for each of the medicines in addition to their safety pattern related to the eventual switching procedure.

An introduction to biosimilar cancer therapeutics: definitions, rationale for development and regulatory requirements

Monoclonal antibodies and other biologic drugs play important roles in the treatment of various hematological malignancies and solid tumors. However, such drugs are intrinsically more expensive to develop than small molecules and their clinical benefits are often accompanied by challenges relating to affordability and access. Patent expiry for ‘originator’ biologics is providing opportunities for a new generation of biosimilar drugs, potentially capable of relieving pressure on healthcare budgets. This article discusses key characteristics of biosimilars, distinguishes them from generics and noncomparable biologics and outlines the robust regulatory requirements that must be followed to establish biosimilarity with a reference product. The path to approval is discussed with reference to the rituximab biosimilar CT-P10, the first licensed monoclonal antibody biosimilar cancer therapeutic.

Biosimilar biologic drugs: a new frontier in medical care

Physicians in training are expected to be aware of the newest developments in patient care. Biologic therapies have changed treatment of many diseases by specifically targeting key disease mediators, but patient access to these therapies can be limited. As patents for the first biologic therapies are expiring, the development and approval of products known as biosimilars is rapidly gaining momentum. A biosimilar is a biologic product that is highly similar to a reference product (a licensed biologic product), notwithstanding minor differences in clinically inactive components. Biosimilars undergo a thorough evaluation compared with the licensed biologic and need to demonstrate comparable clinical pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and safety including immunogenicity. Understanding the processes for new drug approvals, the rigorous evaluation of biosimilars, and considerations about their selection and use can help recently trained physicians to make informed treatment decisions and improve patient outcomes.

Monoclonal Antibody and Fusion Protein Biosimilars Across Therapeutic Areas: A Systematic Review of Published Evidence

BACKGROUND

Despite regulatory efforts to formalize guidance policies on biosimilars, there remains a need to educate healthcare stakeholders on the acknowledged definition of biosimilarity and the data that underpin it.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of the study were to systematically collate published data for monoclonal antibodies and fusion protein biosimilars indicated for cancer, chronic inflammatory diseases, and other indications, and to explore differences in the type and weight (quantity and quality) of available evidence.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, and ISI Web of Science were searched to September 2015. Conference proceedings (n = 17) were searched 2012 to July 2015. Included studies were categorized by originator, study type, and indication. To assess data strength and validity, risk of bias assessments were undertaken.

RESULTS

Across therapeutic areas, 43 named (marketed or proposed) biosimilars were identified for adalimumab, abciximab, bevacizumab, etanercept, infliximab, omalizumab, ranibizumab, rituximab, and trastuzumab originators. Infliximab CT-P13, SB2, and etanercept SB4 biosimilars have the greatest amount of published evidence of similarity with their originators, based on results of clinical studies involving larger numbers of patients or healthy subjects (N = 1405, 743, and 734, respectively). Published data were also retrieved for marketed intended copies of etanercept and rituximab.

CONCLUSIONS

This unbiased synthesis of the literature exposed significant differences in the extent of published evidence between molecules at preclinical, clinical, and post-marketing stages of development, providing clinicians and payers with a consolidated view of the available data and remaining gaps.

Biosimilar structural comparability assessment by NMR: from small proteins to monoclonal antibodies

Biosimilar drug products must have a demonstrated similarity with respect to the reference product's molecules in order to ensure both the effectiveness of the drug and the patients' safety. In this paper the fusion framework of a highly sensitive NMR fingerprinting approach for conformational changes and mathematically-based biosimilarity metrics is introduced. The final goal is to translate the complex spectral information into biosimilarity scores, which are then used to estimate the degree of similarity between the biosimilar and the reference product. The proposed method was successfully applied to a small protein, i.e., filgrastim (neutropenia treatment), which is the first biosimilar approved in the United States, and a relatively large protein, i.e., monoclonal antibody rituximab (lymphoma treatment). This innovative approach introduces a new level of sensitivity to structural changes that are induced by, e.g., a small pH shift or other changes in the protein formulation.

Comparison of originator and biosimilar therapeutic monoclonal antibodies using comprehensive two-dimensional liquid chromatography coupled with time-of-flight mass spectrometry

As research, development, and manufacturing of biosimilar protein therapeutics proliferates, there is great interest in the continued development of a portfolio of complementary analytical methods that can be used to efficiently and effectively characterize biosimilar candidate materials relative to the respective reference (i.e., originator) molecule. Liquid phase separation techniques such as liquid chromatography and capillary electrophoresis are powerful tools that can provide both qualitative and quantitative information about similarities and differences between reference and biosimilar materials, especially when coupled with mass spectrometry. However, the inherent complexity of these protein materials challenges even the most modern one-dimensional (1D) separation methods. Two-dimensional (2D) separations present a number of potential advantages over 1D methods, including increased peak capacity, 2D peak patterns that can facilitate unknown identification, and improvement in the compatibility of some separation methods with mass spectrometry. In this study, we demonstrate the use of comprehensive 2D-LC separations involving cation-exchange (CEX) and reversed-phase (RP) separations in the first and second dimensions to compare 3 reference/biosimilar pairs of monoclonal antibodies (cetuximab, trastuzumab and infliximab) that cover a range of similarity/disimilarity in a middle-up approach. The second dimension RP separations are coupled to time-of-flight mass spectrometry, which enables direct identification of features in the chromatograms obtained from mAbs digested with the IdeS enzyme, or digestion with IdeS followed by reduction with dithiothreitol. As many as 23 chemically unique mAb fragments were detected in a single sample. Our results demonstrate that these rich datasets enable facile assesment of the degree of similarity between reference and biosimilar materials.