[Comparison of two insulin glargine formulations: biosimilar vs. reference product]

BACKGROUND

Biosimilar medicinal products have been in use in the European Union since 2006. In September 2014, insulin glargine (LY IGlar) was approved as a long-acting insulin analogue. In accordance with EMA (European Medicines Agency) and FDA (Food and Drug Administration) guidelines, analytical, preclinical and clinical studies were submitted demonstrating drug safety and biosimilarity of LY IGlar with the reference insulin glargine (IGlar).

METHOD

In a review article, study data collected in the clinical development of LY IGlar are summarized.

RESULTS

A program of Phase 1 studies investigated whether the criteria for bioequivalence were met. Based on these standards, the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of the two insulins were shown to be similar. The clinical comparability of LY IGlar versus IGlar was demonstrated in two Phase 3 studies in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. The tolerability profiles of LY IGlar and IGlar were similar in these studies; no significant differences were observed in the rate of adverse events, hypoglycemic events or immunogenicity.

CONCLUSION

The results of these studies show that LY IGlar represents an alternative treatment option for basal insulin therapy in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes because its efficacy and tolerability is similar to that of IGlar.

Production of an anti-TNFα antibody in murine myeloma cells by perfusion culture

Infliximab is a mouse/human chimeric IgG1 monoclonal antibody which recognizes the proinflammatory cytokine, tumor necrosis factor α (TNFα), and inhibits receptor interactions, thereby decreasing inflammation and autoimmune response in patients. This monoclonal antibody has been successfully used to treat rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, and psoriatic arthritis. However, the high treatment cost limits patient access to this biotherapy. One alternative to this problem is the use of biosimilars. In this work, we describe the stable expression and physicochemical characterization of an anti-TNFα antibody. While infliximab is produced in recombinant murine SP2/0 cells, our anti-TNFα IgG antibody was expressed in recombinant murine NS0 myeloma cells. The best anti-TNFα antibody-expressing clone was selected from three clone candidates based on the stability of IgG expression levels, specific productivity as well as TNFα-binding activity compared to commercial infliximab. Our results indicate that the selected cell clone, culture medium, and fermentation mode allowed for the production of an anti-TNFα antibody with similar characteristics to the reference commercially available product. An optimization of the selected culture medium by metabolomics may increase the volumetric productivity of the process to satisfy the demand for this product. Further experiments should be performed to evaluate the biological properties of this anti-TNFα antibody. KEY POINTS: • An anti-TNFα antibody was produced in NS0 cells using perfusion culture. • A proprietary chemically defined culture medium was used to replace commercially available protein-free medium. • The purified anti-TNFα antibody was comparable to the reference marketed product.

Clinical Development Times for Biosimilars in the United States

Biosimilars are versions of biologic drugs made by different manufacturers that can help lower spending by promoting competition. However, few biosimilars are currently available in the US. To assess the role of testing requirements in this outcome, we investigated clinical development times for 40 biosimilars that initiated phase I testing between 2012 and 2015. We found that most biosimilars underwent phase III testing with an average trial length of 22 months. Of 20 biosimilars that had been approved by October 2019, the median time from initiation of phase I testing to approval was 69.9 months. These findings reveal a high testing bar for approval that likely contributed to limited market entry.

[Interchangeability and substitution of biosimilars]

The rationality of the interchangeability of biosimilars is based on broad scientific evidence and numerous clinical experiences in real life which show no sign of reduced efficacy or different tolerance compared to the original molecule. The substitution of biosimilars (pharmaceutical act) remains widely contested in many countries, notably in France. However, it would make it possible to make very significant savings in a context of major acceleration in health spending. This reluctance is unfounded in light of the quality of biosimilars authorized in Europe and their rigorous evaluation. It is therefore essential to improve the information of health professionals and patients on these biosimilars.

Charge variants of proposed biosimilar to Omalizumab: Isolation, purification and analysis by HPLC methods

Omalizumab (Xolair) is a humanized monoclonal antibody derived by recombinant DNA technology. It binds specifically to immunoglobulin E (IgE) which plays a major role in allergic reaction by releasing histamine and other inflammatory factors from mast cells. Omalizumab binds circulatory IgE with high affinity and prevents from its binding to mast cell receptor. Charge variants are one of the critical quality attributes (CQAs) in biological drug development and sources of heterogeneity which needs to be considered in biosimilarity assessment. In this study, biosimilar product of Xolair was expressed in mammalian cell culture process in laboratory to isolate charge variants (acidic, main peak and basic). Different charge variants were isolated from intermediate purified biosimilar product of Xolair. Isolated charge variants were purified with preparative cation exchange chromatography technique and characterized with different analytical tools includes size exclusion chromatography (SEC-HPLC) and cation exchange chromatography (CEX-HPLC). Purity of acidic, main peak and basic variants was 99.58%, 99.98% and 98.64% respectively as per SEC-HPLC and according to CEX-HPLC purity was 94.25%, 95.58% and 91.33% respectively. The study data indicates that isolated charge variants were purified with desired purity and can be further used for process characterization, in vitro potency and in vivo kinetics studies.

Medicines under additional monitoring in the European Union

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to analyse the characteristics of  medicines subject to additional monitoring. We assessed the following aspects:  the criteria applied to approve a medicine as being subject to additional  monitoring; the authorized dispensing conditions; the pharmacological groups to which they belong; and their post-authorisation safety.

METHOD

We analysed the list published by the European Medicines Agency in  January 2017 (EMA/245297/2013 Rev.41). Information for the analysis was  obtained from the web sites of the European Medicines Agency and the Spanish  Agency of Medicines and Medical Devices.

RESULTS

We assessed 316 medicines subject to additional monitoring. The most  common criterion used to assign a medicine as being subject to additional  monitoring was it being a new active substance (n = 197 [62.3%]). Other  common criteria were requiring a post-authorisation safety study (n = 52  [16.5%]) and being a biologic medicine but not a new active substance (n = 49  [15.5%]). Regarding dispensing conditions, nearly 66% of these medicines were authorized under restricted conditions. Until January 2017, the Spanish Agency  of Medicines and Medical Device published 14 safety reports related to medicines subject to additional monitoring.

CONCLUSIONS

The group of medicines subject to additional monitoring mainly  includes new active substances. The most common pharmacological group is antineoplastic and immunomodulating agents. The postauthorisation safety  study has already produced information published by the Spanish Agency of  Medicines and Medical Devices.

Incidence of COVID-19 in 902 Patients With Immunomediated Inflammatory Diseases Treated With Biologics and Targeted Synthetic Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs-Findings From the BIOCOVID Study

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to examine the incidence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) among patients with immunomediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) treated with biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs and tsDMARDs) and to evaluate the influence of either IMIDs or related therapies on the incidence and evolution of COVID-19.

METHODS

This observational, cross-sectional study was conducted from January 31, 2020, to May 15, 2020. Data of 902 patients were obtained from clinical records in hospitals, primary care units, and community pharmacies. Inclusion criteria were adults with IMIDs treated with bDMARDs or tsDMARDs who started therapy 3 months prior to study commencement. Patients with poor adherence to treatments were excluded. COVID-19 was classified as "definitive" (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 polymerase chain reaction [PCR]-positive), "possible" (characteristic symptoms and negative PCR), and "suspected" (characteristic symptoms but PCR not performed).

RESULTS

COVID-19 was diagnosed in 70 patients (11 definitive, 19 possible, and 40 suspected). The cumulative incidence of definitive COVID-19 was 1.2%. When considering all cases, the incidence was 7.8%. Patients on biosimilars tumor necrosis factor blockers were more likely to have a diagnosis of COVID-19 (odds ratio, 2.308; p < 0.001). Patients on anti-B-cell therapies had a lower incidence of infections (p = 0.046). Low rates of hospitalization (14.3%), pneumonia (14.3%), death (2.9%), or thrombosis (2.9%) were observed, and 94.3% of patients recovered.

CONCLUSIONS

The cumulative incidence of confirmed cases of COVID-19 was similar to the general population, with generally low hospitalization, intensive care management, and mortality rates. COVID-19 incidence was less frequent in patients with more severe immunosuppression.

Optimum duration of adjuvant trastuzumab in treatment of human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 positive early breast cancer: protocol for a network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

Controversy regarding optimum duration of trastuzumab treatment remains in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2) positive early breast cancer. The objective of applying network meta-analysis (NMA) is to integrate existing evidence based on direct and indirect comparisons of efficacy and safety, and then to determine the duration of trastuzumab treatments with the greatest impact on therapeutic outcomes in HER2-positive early breast cancers.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Electronic searching of trastuzumab treatments for early breast cancer by titles and abstracts will be conducted for the period from inception to 16 June 2019 in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase and ClinicalTrils.gov, as well as the annual meetings of San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS), European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) and American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) online archives. The outcomes of interest are overall survival, disease-free survival, acceptability, cardiotoxicities and grade 3 to 4 non-haematological toxicities. Two independent reviewers will screen and extract eligible data based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, and then assess the risk of bias and evidence quality of individual studies using Cochrane Collaboration's tool and Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). The heterogeneity, transitivity and inconsistency of NMA will be evaluated. In addition, we will perform subgroup and sensitivity analyses to assess the robustness and reliability of findings in our NMA.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval is not required for our NMA. Findings from our NMA will be submitted as peer-reviewed journal manuscripts and international conference reports.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019139109.

Treatment patterns, adherence to international guidelines, and financial mechanisms of the market access of advanced breast cancer therapy in Bulgaria

Introduction

Breast cancer is the most common type of cancer affecting women in Europe. Advanced breast cancer (ABC) poses a significant therapeutic challenge, and therefore, timely access to treatment is crucial. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the treatment patterns and patients' access to new therapies for ABC in Bulgaria.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective study in the period 2008-2021. Based on the European Medicines Agency (EMA) database, we analyzed a number of medicinal products with marketing authorization for ABC in the last 13 years. Time to market access was evaluated as the degree of availability, which is measured by the number of medicines that are available to patients (availability index, AI), and the average time elapsed between obtaining a marketing authorization and time to inclusion in the Positive Drug List. Data were analyzed through descriptive statistics via Microsoft Excel version 10.

Results

The average time to access was 564 days for targeted therapy. The availability and compliance index for chemotherapy and hormonal therapy in advanced breast cancer was 1, while the average AI for targeted therapy was 0.67. Patient access to targeted oncology therapy of ABC is above average for Europe and takes 1-2 years.

Conclusion

Faster access is more evident for biosimilars. National regulatory requirements for pricing and reimbursement have a major impact on market access.

Show Us (the U.S.) the Savings

Companies with originator biologics on the market have used a variety of regulatory and legal tricks to fend off biosimilars and keep the revenue generated by their products pouring in. The most common approach has been for the "originators" to take legal action to assert or defend the patents attached to their products.

Statistically Significant versus Practically Relevant Trend in Stability Data

How to decide whether a statistically significant trend is of practical relevance? In the context of stability data of pharmaceuticals, this publication provides a way forward to use different measures of (method) variability to compare to the observed changes over time. A panel of analytical experts assessed whether statistically significant trends were of practical relevance or not. For different types of assessing variability, recommendations for decision criteria were derived that best matched these assessments, i.e., finding a suited balance between not detecting a relevant trend and between flagging a trend wrongly as relevant. For this purpose, more than 60 data sets from Biosimilar projects of Sandoz/Novartis were leveraged. Hence, this article provides a scientific way to assess whether a statistically significant trend is of practical relevance or not, and a case study is presented and discussed.

Promoting Competition in Drug Pricing: A Review of Recent Congressional Legislation

Brand-name prescription drug manufacturers use various strategies to extend their market exclusivity periods by delaying generic or biosimilar competition. Recent Congressional legislation has targeted four such tactics. We analyze these proposals and assess their likely effect on competition in the U.S. drug market.

[Biosimilar registered despite the Netherlands opposing vote: greater uncertainty about authorised drugs in the Netherlands]

On 1 April 2016 the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) issued a positive opinion on a new biological medicine, Flixabi®, a biosimilar to infliximab (Remicade®); however, in the appendix of the European Public Assessment Report (EPAR) it appeared that an important minority (14 of 33 votes) opposed this decision, among them the Netherlands representative. In an original article, the Dutch Medicines Board (CBG-MEB) explained the reason for this decision, but still allowed the drug on the market. This commentary states that the EPAR is a 'snapshot', without the option for an update once the level of uncertainty has been reduced and the drug is more acceptable. This confronts the prescribing physician with an uncertain situation: which drugs can be safely prescribed and which drugs may not be supported by the CBG-MEB?

A Case Study for Critical Reagent Qualification for Ligand Binding Assays Using Equivalence Test Methodology

Qualifying critical reagents in ligand binding assays by parallel testing of current and candidate reagent lots is recommended by regulatory agencies and industry groups, but specific guidance on the format of reagent qualification experiments is limited. Equivalence testing is a statistically sound approach that is consistent with the objective of critical reagent qualification. We present power analysis for equivalence regions ranging from 1.25- to 1.5-fold multiples of the GM ratio (centered on 1) of current and candidate lots, over a range of assay variability from 5 to 30% coefficient of variation (CV). A 1.25-fold equivalence region can be tested using 6 to 12 plates per lot for assays with up to 15% CV but is not practical for more variable assays. For these assays, wider equivalence regions are justified so long as care is taken to avoid assay drift and the assay remains suitable for the intended use. The equivalence test method is illustrated using historical data from passing and failing reagent qualification experiments. Simulation analysis was performed to support the design of qualification experiments using 6, 12, or 18 plates per lot over a broad range of assay variability. A challenge in implementing the equivalence test approach is selecting an appropriate equivalence region. Equivalence regions providing 90% power using 12 plates/lot were consistent with 1.5σ bounds, which are recommended for equivalence testing of critical quality attributes of biosimilars.

Gene therapy for age-related macular degeneration: potential, feasibility, and pitfalls

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The landscape for age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is rapidly changing with addition of biosimilars and now United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved nonneovascular AMD (nnAMD) treatment options. These developments have inspired a burgeoning pipeline of gene therapy approaches focused on similar antivascular endothelial growth factors (VEGF) and complement related pathways. Historic and more recent setbacks in the gene therapy pipeline, including intraocular inflammatory reactions, have raised important concerns for adverse events related to AMD therapeutics both for gene and nongene approaches. The specific clinical profile of these therapeutics approaching later stage clinical trials are complex and under active investigation; however, these options hold promise to disrupt the current landscape and change management paradigms for one of the leading causes of vision loss worldwide.

RECENT FINDINGS

This review covers current gene therapy approaches for neovascular AMD (nAMD) and nnAMD. Intravitreal, suprachoroidal, and subretinal delivery routes are discussed with attention to technical procedure, capabilities for transgene delivery to target tissue, immunogenicity, and collateral effects. Suprachoroidal delivery is an emerging approach which may bridge some of the practical drawbacks for intravitreal and subretinal methods, though with less elaborated immunologic profile. In parallel to delivery modification, viral vectors have been cultivated to target specific cells, with promising enhancements in adeno-associated viral (AAV) vectors and persistent interest in alternate viral and nonviral delivery vectors. Ongoing questions such as steroid or immunosuppressive regimen and economic considerations from a payer and societal perspective are discussed.

SUMMARY

The present review discusses emerging gene therapy options which could foster new, more durable nAMD and nnAMD therapeutics. These options will need refinement with regards to route, vector, and dosage, and specialists must decipher the specific clinical risk benefit profile for individual patients. Ongoing concerns for immunogenicity or dosage related adverse events could stifle progress, while further vector development and refined delivery techniques have the potential to change the safety and efficacy of currently options in the pipeline.

Biosimilar Uptake in Medicare Advantage vs Traditional Medicare

This cross-sectional study uses Traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage claims data to evaluate uptake of biosimilars relative to their reference products.