Pharmacodynamic and Pharmacokinetic Equivalences of Epoetin Hospira and Epogen(®) After Multiple Subcutaneous Doses to Healthy Male Subjects

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the pharmacodynamic (PD) and pharmacokinetic (PK) equivalences of multiple doses of the proposed biosimilar Epoetin Hospira to the reference product Epogen(⁎), when each is administered three times per week over 28 days to healthy male subjects

METHODS

This single center, open-label, randomized, parallel group study was conducted in 129 healthy male subjects. Subjects were randomized to receive 100 U/kg Epoetin Hospira or 100 U/kg Epogen, each administered subcutaneously 3 times per week over 28 days. Blood was collected for determination of hemoglobin (Hb) concentrations for PD properties and for determination of epoetin concentrations for PK properties. The primary PD end point was the geometric mean ratio (GMR) of the 2 treatments for area under the effect curve for Hb from day 1 through 48 hours after the final dose of study drug administration on day 26, and the primary PK end point was the GMR of the 2 treatments for AUC0-48 and Cmax for epoetin after the final dose of study drug on day 26.

FINDINGS

The GMR (Epoetin Hospira/Epogen) for the area under the effect curve for Hb from day 1 through 48 hours after the final dose of study drug administration on day 26 was 1.006 with a 95% CI of 0.996 to 1.016, which was contained within the prespecified equivalence margin of 0.965 to 1.035. The GMRs (Epoetin Hospira/Epogen) for the epoetin-derived PK parameters were 0.974 for AUC0-48 with a 90% CI of 0.896 to 1.059, and 0.938 for Cmax with a 90% CI of 0.839 to 1.049, with both 90% CIs contained within the prespecified equivalence margin of 0.80 to 1.25. The incidence (21.2% and 23.8% for Epoetin Hospira and Epogen, respectively) and severity of adverse events were similar between the 2 groups. One subject in each treatment group had a positive recombinant human erythropoietin antibody result by radioimmunoprecipitation assay before dosing and throughout study conduct with negative immunoglobulin M and neutralizing antibodies and with no evidence of clinical deterioration or of impact on PD, PK, or safety profile.

IMPLICATIONS

The results of this study established PD and PK equivalences of multiple subcutaneous doses of the proposed biosimilar Epoetin Hospira to the reference product Epogen in healthy male subjects, and supported the overall demonstration of biosimilarity of Epoetin Hospira and Epogen.

[The patents game. Generic and biosimilar drugs]

The protection provided by patents on medicines has a limited duration. The expiry of patents expiration allows copies of the drugs to be released, competing with original. At first, they were identical to the original, known as generic drugs, but in recent years, due to the marketing of biological therapies and the expiry of many of their patents, biosimilar drugs have also emerged. These are not exact copies of the original, but, like generic drugs, biosimilar drugs have to demonstrate equivalence to the reference drugs in quality, safety and efficacy. Nevertheless, despite their importance and contribution to sustainability of health system, doctors are sometimes unaware of differences between them, and their impact in terms of clinical and economic effects. An attempt is made to review and clarify certain aspects often unknown by physicians, despite their involvement in their use.

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.

[Liver safety of biosimilar of recombinant tumor necrosis factor-α receptor-antibody fusion protein in Spondyloarthritis patients under different status of HBV infection: a prospective observational study]

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the influence of recombinant human tumor necrosis factor α receptor-antibody fusion protein (rhTNFR: Fc) to the Hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection status and liver function of Spondyloarthritis (SpA) patients under different HBV infection status.

METHODS

Active SpA patients with normal liver function were enrolled in Sun Yat-sen Memorial hospital from February 2012 to August 2014. All were treated with rhTNFR: Fc based therapy (monotherapy or combined therapy) for at least 12 weeks. SpA disease activity, HBV infection status and liver function were evaluated at each interview (baseline, 4(th) and 12(th) week, as primary endpoint). Part of the patients were evaluated at 24(th) week with or without extended rhTNFR: Fc treatment(as secondary endpoint) based on their choice.

RESULTS

Eighty-one patients who completed 12-week follow-up visit were divided into chronic HBV carrier group (n=21), past HBV exposure group (n=25) and free of HBV infection group (n=35). Alanine transaminase (ALT) elevated (no more than 3-fold of normal) in 3 patients from 3 groups respectively at 4th week. During 24-week follow-up, none in past HBV exposure group or in free of HBV infection group developed HBV reactivation or HBV infection; and 4 patients in chronic HBV carrier group developed HBV reactivation without more than 2-fold of normalelevation of ALT. Among 7 patients with negative baseline HBV-DNA and without antiviral prophylaxis, 2 patients developed HBV reactivation at 10(th) 24(th) week of rhTNFR: Fc therapy respectively and 1 patient developed reactivation at 16(th) week (12-week rhTNFR: Fc+ thalidomide therapy and following 4-week thalidomide monotherapy), whose HBV-DNA load returned to normal spontaneously or after antiviral therapy. Four chronic HBV carriers with low-load of baseline HBV-DNA did not develop reactivation. One of 9 chronic HBV carriers with high-load of baseline HBV-DNA developed reactivation due to resistance of antiviral prophylaxis.

CONCLUSIONS

Short-term rhTNFR: Fc based therapy may induce mild and transient HBV reactivation, usually without hepatitis.

Study design is important for ESA biosimilars

U.S. regulations require biosimilars to be highly similar to their reference product and demonstrate no clinically meaningful differences in safety, purity, or potency. For biosimilars of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs), this standard is challenging--structural differences are likely, and their effect on safety and efficacy cannot be predicted from analytical studies. Thus, clinical trials should compare hemoglobin, dose, and immunogenicity endpoints.

Abeta targets of the biosimilar antibodies of Bapineuzumab, Crenezumab, Solanezumab in comparison to an antibody against N‑truncated Abeta in sporadic Alzheimer disease cases and mouse models

Solanezumab and Crenezumab are two humanized antibodies targeting Amyloid-β (Aβ) which are currently tested in multiple clinical trials for the prevention of Alzheimer's disease. However, there is a scientific discussion ongoing about the target engagement of these antibodies. Here, we report the immunohistochemical staining profiles of biosimilar antibodies of Solanezumab, Crenezumab and Bapineuzumab in human formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue and human fresh frozen tissue. Furthermore, we performed a direct comparative immunohistochemistry analysis of the biosimilar versions of the humanized antibodies in different mouse models including 5XFAD, Tg4-42, TBA42, APP/PS1KI, 3xTg. The staining pattern with these humanized antibodies revealed a surprisingly similar profile. All three antibodies detected plaques, cerebral amyloid angiopathy and intraneuronal Aβ in a similar fashion. Remarkably, Solanezumab showed a strong binding affinity to plaques. We also reaffirmed that Bapineuzumab does not recognize N-truncated or modified Aβ, while Solanezumab and Crenezumab do detect N-terminally modified Aβ peptides Aβ4-42 and pyroglutamate Aβ3-42. In addition, we compared the results with the staining pattern of the mouse NT4X antibody that recognizes specifically Aβ4-42 and pyroglutamate Aβ3-42, but not full-length Aβ1-42. In contrast to the biosimilar antibodies of Solanezumab, Crenezumab and Bapineuzumab, the murine NT4X antibody shows a unique target engagement. NT4X does barely cross-react with amyloid plaques in human tissue. It does, however, detect cerebral amyloid angiopathy in human tissue. In Alzheimer mouse models, NT4X detects intraneuronal Aβ and plaques comparable to the humanized antibodies. In conclusion, the biosimilar antibodies Solanezumab, Crenezumab and Bapineuzumab strongly react with amyloid plaques, which are in contrast to the NT4X antibody that hardly recognizes plaques in human tissue. Therefore, NT4X is the first of a new class of therapeutic antibodies.

Pharmacovigilance Considerations for Biosimilars in the USA

In 2015, five or more biosimilars may be approved in the USA. Because no two biologic medicines are identical, postapproval safety monitoring will be critical to detect potential differences in safety signals between a biosimilar, its reference product, and other biosimilars. Postapproval safety monitoring in the USA uses two signal detection systems: spontaneous reporting systems (SRSs) and active surveillance (AS) systems. Both depend on accurate identification of the specific product(s) dispensed or administered to patients, which may be compromised when products from multiple manufacturers share common drug nomenclature or coding. Product identification can present challenges across different healthcare settings, including inpatient and ambulatory care. Common oral-dosage drugs are predominantly dispensed directly to patients by pharmacists, whereas most injectable drugs, including biologics, are administered to patients by healthcare professionals in outpatient clinics or hospitals. Thus, the effectiveness of SRS and AS mechanisms in both pharmacy and medical channels must be given greater consideration as biotechnology matures. In this article, we describe these systems and their limitations. We identify challenges and opportunities for product-specific safety surveillance of biologics in both the pharmacy and medical settings and provide recommendations to improve biologic safety surveillance under the current and future systems envisioned in the Drug Quality and Security Act. As biosimilars are integrated into existing pharmacovigilance systems, distinguishable nonproprietary names and codes for all biologics, as well as other opportunities to improve traceability (e.g., increased use of barcodes), must be considered to ensure patient safety and confidence in this new class of drugs.

Biosimilars advancements: Moving on to the future

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

Debate on Naming of Biosimilars Continues

Generic drug manufacturers, pharmacists, pharmacies, and health care companies have squared off with manufacturers of brand-name drugs over whether biosimilars and their referent biologics should share the same nonproprietary name, even though they are not identical drugs. The FDA approved the first biosimilar in the United States in March but has not yet released guidelines for naming them.

[Melanoma immunotherapy: dendritic cell vaccines]

This is a narrative review that shows accessible information to the scientific community about melanoma and immunotherapy. Dendritic cells have the ability to participate in innate and adaptive immunity, but are not unfamiliar to the immune evasion of tumors. Knowing the biology and role has led to generate in vitro several prospects of autologous cell vaccines against diverse types of cancer in humans and animal models. However, given the low efficiency they have shown, we must implement strategies to enhance their natural capacity either through the coexpression of key molecules to activate or reactivate the immune system, in combination with biosimilars or chemotherapeutic drugs. The action of natural products as alternative or adjuvant immunostimulant should not be ruled out. All types of immunotherapy should measure the impact of myeloid suppressor cells, which can attack the immune system and help tumor progression, respectively. This can reduce the activity of cellular vaccines and/or their combinations, that could be the difference between success or not of the immunotherapy. Although for melanoma there exist biosimilars approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), not all have the expected success. Therefore it is necessary to evaluate other strategies including cellular vaccines loaded with tumor antigenic peptides expressed exclusively or antigens from tumor extracts and their respective adjuvants.

Similar names for similar biologics

Approval of the first biosimilar in the USA may occur by the end of 2014, yet a naming approach for biosimilars has not been determined. Biosimilars are highly similar to their biologic reference product but are not identical to it, because of their structural complexity and variations in manufacturing processes among companies. There is a need for a naming approach that can distinguish a biosimilar from its reference product and other biosimilars and ensure accurate tracing of adverse events (AEs) to the administered product. In contrast, generic small-molecule drugs are identical to their reference product and, therefore, share the same nonproprietary name. Clinical trials required to demonstrate biosimilarity for approval may not detect rare AEs or those occurring after prolonged use, and the incidence of such events may differ between a biosimilar and its reference product. The need for precise biologic identification is further underscored by the possibility of biosimilar interchangeability, a US designation that will allow substitution without prescriber intervention. For several biologics, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has used a naming approach that adds a prefix to a common root nonproprietary name, enabling healthcare providers to distinguish between products, avoid medication errors, and facilitate pharmacovigilance. We recommend that the FDA implement a biosimilars naming policy that likewise would add a distinguishable prefix or suffix to the root nonproprietary name of the reference product. This approach would ensure that a biosimilar could be distinguished from its reference product and other biosimilars in patient records and pharmacovigilance databases/reports, facilitating accurate attribution of AEs.

[Experiences with biosimilar drugs in therapy]

Biosimilar drugs or drugs which are similar to reference biological drugs represent a new treatment option within the biological treatment. They are already the standard biotherapeutics option in some fields of medicine, in others as in diabetology, remain to be evaluated. The article presents the definition of biosimilar drugs and summarizes the therapeutic benefits and attitudes of agencies for drug control in the United States and Europe.

Assessment of pharmacists' views on biosimilar naming conventions

BACKGROUND

As the date for the introduction of biosimilars in the United States approaches, questions remain regarding the naming, coding, and approval process for these agents that will need to be carefully considered.

OBJECTIVES

To (a) ascertain pharmacists' awareness of and comfort level with biosimilars and (b) determine the impact of identical or different nonproprietary names on pharmacists' confidence in substituting interchangeable biologics.

METHODS

The Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy, the American Pharmacists Association, and the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists fielded a survey to their membership or a partial segment of their membership. The survey consisted of 2 sections: (1) current processes for reporting biologics being dispensed and (2) familiarity and preferences regarding biosimilars.

RESULTS

A substantial majority (70.1%) of respondents reported regularly using National Drug Code numbers as the identifier for biological products dispensed to patients; however, 10.4% of respondents reported using either the nonproprietary name or the Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System code as the identifier. When presented with 3 scenarios for naming conventions of interchangeable biosimilars and asked to rate their level of confidence (1 = not confident, 5 = very confident) to substitute, 74.6% of pharmacists indicated that they would be confident or very confident in substituting an interchangeable biosimilar with the reference product if both shared the same active ingredient or nonproprietary name of the reference biologic; 25.3% of pharmacists were confident in substituting when the nonproprietary name is not shared with the biologic; and 37.3% of pharmacists expressed confidence in substituting when the biologic and biosimilar product did not share the same nonproprietary name because of a prefix or suffix.

CONCLUSIONS

The imminent entry of biosimilars into the U.S. market highlights the need to carefully evaluate current processes of identification, reporting, and recording of the biological products dispensed. The results of this survey indicate that the ultimate decision on the naming convention for biosimilars may influence dispensing pharmacists, with the majority of respondents being most comfortable with biosimilars having the same nonproprietary name as the reference biologic.

[Biosimilars, the journey has begun]

According to the European Medicine Agency, a "biosimilar" is a biological medicinal product that contains a version of the active substance of an original biological medicinal product (reference or innovative medicinal product) that has been authorized in the European Economic Area. The similarity to the reference medicinal product in terms of quality, biological activity, safety and efficacy needs to be set on a comprehensive comparability basis. The generic standard approach (demonstration of bioequivalence with a reference medicinal product by appropriate bioavailability studies), which is applicable to a wide range of chemically derived medicinal products, is not sufficient to prove the similarity of biotechnology derived products due to their structural complexity. Furthermore, these biopharmaceuticals products, in comparison with the conventional ones, show a greater ability to activate the immune response. The evaluation of biosimilar medicines for authorisation purposes by the European Medicine Agency does not include recommendations on whether a biosimilar should be used interchangeably with its reference medicine. Substitution policies are, therefore, within the remit of the EU member states. In order to support pharmacovigilance monitoring, all appropriate measures should be taken to clearly identify any biological medicinal product with due regard to its brand name and batch number. The situation of the European Community and the regulatory framework have been developed since the first applications (growth hormone), almost a decade ago, until the recent advent (monoclonal antibodies). The introduction to the market of biosimilars have positive effects on competition by improving access to biological therapies.