Safety, Immunogenicity and Interchangeability of Biosimilar Monoclonal Antibodies and Fusion Proteins: A Regulatory Perspective

An evaluation of the utilisation of biosimilar monoclonal antibody drugs in Ireland and barriers to their usage

BACKGROUND

While biologic drugs have demonstrated efficacy across a range of indications, patient access to these drugs is constrained due to their high cost. Biosimilars provide a means to increase patient access while reducing the financial burden.

AIMS

The primary objective was to determine the current usage of biosimilar and reference trastuzumab and rituximab in four Irish hospitals. A secondary objective involved determining barriers to biosimilar usage.

METHODS

This project involved a retrospective chart review to analyse the usage of reference and biosimilar versions of trastuzumab and rituximab. Additionally, a prospective cross-sectional study identified barriers to the usage of biosimilars via the distribution of a novel questionnaire to patients, pharmacists, doctors and students.

RESULTS

The utilisation of biosimilar intravenous trastuzumab and rituximab ranged from 39 to 100%, and 0 to 89%, respectively. A total of n = 479 questionnaire responses were included. Biosimilar awareness was significantly lower among 'Doctors and Medical Students' (45.3%; 95% [CI, 33.8-57.3%]) compared to 'Pharmacists and Pharmacy Students' (97.1%; 95% [CI, 94-98.8%; comparison p < 0.001]). A significant majority of healthcare professionals agreed biosimilars should have consistent nomenclature (p < 0.001). A significant majority of patients (87.3%, 95% [CI, 81.3-92%; p < 0.001]) indicated that they would agree to commence using a biosimilar medicine.

CONCLUSION

Biosimilar versions of trastuzumab and rituximab were in use to a variable extent. There remains a considerable opportunity to further increase the usage to maximise their potential benefits. A series of challenges were identified including reduced awareness among the medical profession and lack of clear nomenclature.

Adalimumab serum levels and anti-drug antibodies: associations to treatment response and drug survival in inflammatory joint diseases

OBJECTIVES

To explore associations between serum adalimumab level, treatment response and drug survival in order to identify optimal drug levels for therapeutic drug monitoring of adalimumab. Also, to assess the occurrence and risk factors of anti-drug antibody (ADAb) formation.

METHODS

Non-trough adalimumab and ADAb levels were measured by automated fluorescence assays in serum collected after 3 months of adalimumab treatment in patients with RA, PsA or axial SpA (axSpA) included in the observational NOR-DMARD study. Treatment response was evaluated after 3 months and drug survival was evaluated during long-term follow-up.

RESULTS

In 340 patients (97 RA, 69 PsA, 174 axSpA), the median adalimumab level was 7.3 mg/l (interquartile range 4.0-10.3). A total of 33 (10%) patients developed ADAbs. Findings were comparable across diagnoses. In RA and PsA, adalimumab levels ≥6.0 mg/l were associated with treatment response [odds ratio (OR) 2.2 (95% CI 1.0, 4.4)] and improved drug survival [hazard ratio 0.49 (95% CI 0.27, 0.80)]. In axSpA, a therapeutic level could not be identified, but higher adalimumab levels were associated with response. Factors associated with ADAb formation were previous bDMARD use, no methotrexate comedication and the use of adalimumab originator compared with GP2017.

CONCLUSION

Higher adalimumab levels were associated with a better response and improved drug survival for all diagnoses, with a suggested lower threshold of 6.0 mg/l for RA/PsA. This finding, the large variability in drug levels among patients receiving standard adalimumab dose and the high proportion of patients developing ADAbs encourages further investigations into the potential role of therapeutic drug monitoring of adalimumab.

Use of Biosimilars: A Systematic Review of Published Position Statements and Recommendations from Health Organisations and Societies

BACKGROUND

Hesitation about using biosimilars still exists among healthcare professionals (HCPs), despite extensive experience with their use. Globally, several health organisations and societies from various specialties have issued biosimilar position statements to guide the use of biosimilars in their specialties. However, it is uncertain how similar or different their positions or recommendations are or whether these positions have evolved with the increased experience and availability of new evidence.

OBJECTIVES

The study aimed to describe and assess the recommendations of published position statements regarding several aspects of biosimilars across specialties and determine whether these positions have changed with the emergence of new evidence.

METHODS

We systematically searched for published position statements of biosimilars in online databases and included statements written in English. The search was from the inception of the databases until May 2023. Two reviewers independently extracted the data. Only position statements that included recommendations to guide the use of biosimilars in clinical practice and were issued by health organisations and societies, including expert panels, were included. We synthesised recommendations on five aspects: prescribing practice, extrapolation of indication, interchangeability, treatment initiation with biosimilars in biologic-naïve patients, and pharmacovigilance.

RESULTS

The review included 25 papers involving eight specialties, 16 of which were from European countries, 1 from an international organisation representing 49 countries, and 6 from various countries. The papers were published between 2009 and 2020, with 19 published between 2015 and 2020. Of the five aspects of biosimilars assessed, nearly half (11 of 25) of the papers at the time they were published did not base their positions on a scientific or evidence-based approach. Only 4 of the 25 position papers were identified as revisions of their previous papers. With increasing experience in biosimilars and the emergence of new evidence, about 60% (16 of 25) of the papers contained outdated recommendations, particularly on two aspects. They were extrapolations of indications and interchangeability (including switching). The recommendations for most papers for three other aspects were still appropriate. These were prescribing biosimilars by their brand name and active ingredient, initiating treatment with biosimilars in biologic-naïve patients, and monitoring the long-term safety of biosimilars through pharmacovigilance. For four of the revised papers, their position evolved from opposing indication extrapolation for biosimilars to accepting it, while the position of two papers shifted from not recommending biosimilar switching to permitting the practice. Meanwhile, most papers were against automatic substitution by pharmacists because the evidence for this practice was still limited.

CONCLUSIONS

Across specialties, the variability among the position statements is seen for extrapolation of indications for biosimilars and interchangeability (including switching). This requires a revision, considering the latest evidence and growing experience with the use of biosimilars in extrapolated indications and with switching.

Consensus-Based Overarching Principles and Recommendations on the Use of Biosimilars in the Treatment of Inflammatory Arthritis in the Gulf Region

BACKGROUND

Though biologic agents have significantly improved the treatment of inflammatory arthritis (rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and axial spondyloarthritis), high costs, stringent regulations, strict reimbursement criteria, and existing patents have limited patient access to treatments. While being highly similar in quality, safety, and efficacy to biologic reference products, biosimilars can reduce the financial burden and prevent underutilization of medication.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this initiative was to develop an evidence-based consensus of overarching principles and recommendations aimed at standardizing the use of biosimilars in treating inflammatory arthritis in the Gulf region.

METHODS

A task force of practicing rheumatologists, a clinical pharmacist, a health economist, patients, regulators, and payors from across the Gulf region developed recommendations and overarching principles based on the outputs of a systematic literature review conducted to address Patient-Intervention-Comparison-Outcome (PICO) questions specific to key challenges regarding the use of biosimilars for the treatment of inflammatory arthritis in the region. As the data before 2017 have been previously reviewed in another publication, the current review focused on data published between January 2017 and August 2022 (PROSPERO ID CRD42022364002). Consensus on each statement required a level of agreement of 70% or greater.

RESULTS

Consensus was reached for five overarching principles and nine recommendations by the task force. The principles emphasize the importance of improving the awareness, understanding, and perception of biosimilars, as well as the need for regulated regional real-world data generation and protocols to make biosimilars a viable and affordable treatment option for all patients. The consensus recommendations advocate the need for shared treatment decisions between rheumatologists and patients when considering biosimilars. They further recommend that confirmation of a biosimilar's efficacy and safety in a single indication is sufficient for extrapolation to other diseases for which the reference product has been approved. Finally, there is a need for pharmacovigilance and national health policies governing the adoption and prescription of biosimilars in clinical practice across the region.

CONCLUSIONS

These are the first consensus recommendations for the Gulf region based on a systematic literature review and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, integrating clinical evidence with clinical expertise to optimize decision making for the use of biosimilars in patients with inflammatory arthritis. They were formulated based on predominantly international data because of the limited regional data and therefore can be generalized to serve as recommendations for healthcare professionals in other parts of the world.

Additional Data in Expanded Patient Populations and New Indications Support the Practice of Biosimilar-to-Biosimilar Switching

As of 31 December, 2023, 31 observational studies have been published, including a total of 6081 patients who underwent a switch from one biosimilar to another biosimilar of the same reference biologic. Most studies evaluated infliximab, while a smaller number evaluated adalimumab, rituximab or etanercept. Indications studied now include sarcoidosis, as well as the indications previously reported of rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis/ankylosing spondylitis and inflammatory bowel disease (Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis). This updated data set includes eight additional studies and 2386 more patients compared with those included in an earlier systematic review of biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching. In addition, since the earlier systematic review was published in 2022, the European Medicines Agency has stated that reference-to-biosimilar and biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching in the European Union is safe and efficacy remains unchanged after switching. Furthermore, following a review of the available evidence, the US Food and Drug Administration has confirmed that initial safety and immunogenicity concerns related to biosimilar switching are unfounded and that no differences are observed in efficacy, safety or immunogenicity following one or more switches. The availability of this new efficacy and safety data together with the supportive statements from the European Medicines Agency and the Food and Drug Administration re-confirm the conclusion that as a scientific matter, biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching is an effective clinical practice, with no new safety concerns. Any suggestions to the contrary are not supported by the evidence.

Leveraging the holistic benefits of biosimilars in Europe - part 2: how payers can safeguard the future of a healthy biosimilar market environment

INTRODUCTION

Biosimilars have improved access to biologic medicines; however, historical thinking may jeopardize the viability of future markets.

AREAS COVERED

An expert panel of eight diverse European stakeholders provided insights about rethinking biosimilars and cost-savings, reducing patient access inequalities, increasing inter-market equity, and improving education. The insights reported here (Part 2) follow a study that provides perspectives on leveraging the holistic benefits of biosimilars for market sustainability based on independent survey results and telephone interviews of stakeholders from diverse biosimilar markets (Part 1). Directional recommendations are provided for payers.

EXPERT OPINION

The panel's market maturity framework for biosimilars has three stages: 'Invest,' 'Expand' and 'Harvest.' Across market stages, re-thinking the benefits of biosimilars beyond cost-savings, considering earlier or expanded access/new indications, product innovations, and re-investment of biosimilar-generated cost-savings should be communicated to stakeholders to promote further engagement. During 'Expand' and 'Harvest' stages, development of efficient, forward-looking procurement systems and mechanisms that drive uptake and stabilize competition between manufacturers are key. Future biosimilars will target various therapy areas beyond those targeted by existing biosimilars. To ensure a healthy, accessible future market, stakeholders must align their objectives, communicate, collaborate, and coordinate via education, incentivization, and procurement, to maximize the totality of benefits.

Factors that Influence Healthcare Professionals' Intentions towards Biosimilars

Background: Physicians often prescribe original biologic products to patients who have not used them before and are reluctant to switch to biosimilars. Biosimilars are highly similar versions of already-approved biologics, but healthcare professionals typically hesitate to transition patients from the original products to biosimilars. This study aims to investigate the factors that influence U.S. healthcare professionals' intentions to use biosimilars. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted. 510 participants were eligible healthcare professionals (279 physicians and 231 pharmacists). The theory of planned behavior (TPB) is used to identify which factors affect healthcare professionals' intentions. Descriptive statistics, chi-square, and the logistic regression model tested the TPB constructs as predictors of intentions toward biosimilars. Results: Among 279 physicians, most were aged 61 and above, with high (n = 142) and low (n = 137) intentions. Male physicians constituted 71% of the population. Attending physicians (66.3%) showed consistent perceptions towards biosimilars, primarily in the private sector (76.3%). Pharmacists (n = 231), a higher percentage of females demonstrated higher intentions compared to males (35.5% vs. 28.1%); the majority were community pharmacists. Associations between years of practice and intentions were significant. Positive correlations existed between beliefs and intentions, except for normative beliefs. Conclusions: This study revealed diverse attitudes among healthcare professionals towards biosimilars in the USA. Pharmacists and physicians, especially those with limited experience, require ongoing education on biosimilar manufacturing pathways. This education supports the appropriate use of biosimilars and helps standardize federal and state legislation.

The comparison of safety and cost between reference drug of rituximab and its biosimilar Riximyo in lymphoproliferative disorders and other hematological diseases. Single center experience

Rituximab, anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, has broad clinical application. The aim of this study is to compare the safety and cost of the original reference rituximab (MabThera) and its biosimilar (Riximyo). This retrospective analysis of 262 patients receiving Riximyo in the Department of Hematology of Wroclaw Medical University in Poland from the period of 1 October 2020 to 21 June 2021 focused on infusion-related reactions (IRRs), which occurred in 4,96% of patients (N = 13). 109 patients (41,6%) had previously been treated with the reference drug and 2 IRRs were reported after switching therapy. During the study period, after biosimilar introduction, the cost of rituximab decreased by 41%. Rixmyo while maintaining similar safety profile is much more cost-effective.

Biosimilar in Breast Cancer: A Narrative Review

Breast cancer (BC) has been identified as a major public health cancer as it topped the list of most prevalent cancers among women in the last three years. Rigorous research has been conducted to improve the prognosis of cancer therapies since the time of inception. Recent advancements in cancer therapy have introduced monoclonal biosimilars as a promising treatment alternative. Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), produced through cloning, have demonstrated effectiveness in targeting diverse antigens. Biosimilar, considered complex entities compared to small-molecule drugs, pose challenges in replication due to their biological nature. The manufacturing process involves rigorous comparability testing to ensure similarity in quality, safety, and efficacy with the reference product. Trastuzumab biosimilars, such as CT-P6, Ontruzant®, ABP 980, and PF-05280014, have shown efficacy in treating HER2-positive metastatic BCs, presenting a viable alternative to the reference product. The implications of monoclonal biosimilars extend beyond trastuzumab, with bevacizumab emerging as another significant biosimilar for BC treatment. The shift toward biosimilar aims to enhance accessibility to biologics by reducing costs. Health economic analyses indicate potential cost savings, contributing to the overall cost-effectiveness of biosimilar adoption. While concerns about switching between reference products and biosimilars exist, evidence suggests a lower risk of immunogenicity-related side effects with mAbs like trastuzumab. Monoclonal biosimilars present a promising avenue in BC therapy, demonstrating efficacy, safety, and potential cost savings. The integration of biosimilars into cancer treatment strategies offers a means to improve accessibility to effective care while addressing economic considerations in healthcare.

Investigation of Immunogenicity Assessment of Biosimilar Monoclonal Antibodies in the United States

Immunogenicity is critical for biologics. However, reference biologics labeling documents do not necessarily mention immunogenicity impact, rendering the development of biosimilars more challenging. We aimed to investigate the comparative assessment of immunogenicity profiles between biosimilars and their respective reference biologics in the review reports of the biosimilar monoclonal antibody applications approved by the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as of March 13, 2022, covering 22 applications approved between April 5, 2016, and December 17, 2021. The maximum differences in anti-drug antibody (ADA) and neutralizing antibody (NAb) incidences between biosimilars and reference products mostly fell within ± 15% (-13.6% to 12%) and ± 20% (-17.4% to 17.1%, except extreme values of -23.4% and 66.7%), respectively. In comparison with antineoplastic agents, more immunosuppressants had ADA-positive (11/11, 100.0% vs. 8/10, 80.0%)/NAb-positive (11/11, 100.0% vs. 3/10, 30.0%) subjects, and the distribution of the aforementioned incidence differences was wider. The investigated biosimilars with available data for analysis demonstrated a high degree of consistency with their reference products in terms of the impact on pharmacokinetic parameters. No increase in immunogenicity was found in available switching studies. Most (16/22, 72.7%) biosimilars were issued post-marketing requirements that were not directly related to immunogenicity concerns. The FDA considered the totality of evidence assessing clinical consequences of immunogenicity differences, if any. Additional information on titers and subgroup analysis may be warranted to elucidate the critical attributes of immunogenicity impact and to aid in forming cost-effective strategies for biosimilar development.

Long-Term Real-World Post-approval Safety Data of Multiple Biosimilars from One Marketing-Authorization Holder After More than 18 Years Since Their First Biosimilar Launch

BACKGROUND

Biosimilars are additional treatment options that are approved based on robust analytical and clinical comparisons with their reference biologic. At the time of initial approval, the full safety profile of a biosimilar is inferred from the reference biologic. Nonetheless, there are still lingering concerns related to the long-term safety of biosimilars. Therefore, we reviewed the post-approval pharmacovigilance data for eight marketed biosimilars from one Marketing Authorization Holder (MAH) to summarize their safety experience in a real-world setting for up to 18 years since their first biosimilar launch.

METHODS

Post-approval cumulative patient exposure and safety experience for eight Sandoz biosimilars [adalimumab (Hyrimoz®), epoetin alfa (Binocrit®), etanercept (Erelzi®), filgrastim (Zarzio®), infliximab (Zessly®), pegfilgrastim (Ziextenzo®), rituximab (Rixathon®), and somatropin (Omnitrope®)] was summarized based on the available pharmacovigilance data from Periodic Safety Update Reports (PSURs) and the corresponding health authority-authored PSUR assessment reports, where available, as of 31 January 2023. Exposure to all biosimilars was calculated in patient treatment days (PTD) except for rituximab, which was expressed in number of patient doses (PD).

RESULTS

The combined post-approval cumulative exposure to seven out of the eight marketed Sandoz biosimilars was more than 1.3 billion PTD and for rituximab more than 1.8 million PD. Overall, a critical analysis of the cumulative safety data of all eight Sandoz biosimilar PSURs concluded that the overall benefit-risk profile of each remains favorable and is consistent with the respective reference biologics.

CONCLUSIONS

This is one of the largest reviews of post-approval biosimilar pharmacovigilance data to date by one MAH. The real-world experience of all eight marketed Sandoz biosimilars for up to 18 years demonstrates that Sandoz biosimilars can be used as safely as their respective reference biologics. Therefore, patients and healthcare providers can be confident in the clinical benefit and safety of Sandoz biosimilars. It is reasonable to believe that similar conclusions about safety may be reached for other biosimilars developed and approved to the high standards as are already in place by major health authorities such as the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The long-term safety of biosimilars demonstrated here provides strong support for the concept of biosimilarity.

Recent Advances in the Development of Monoclonal Antibodies and Next-Generation Antibodies

mAbs are highly indispensable tools for diagnostic, prophylactic, and therapeutic applications. The first technique, hybridoma technology, was based on fusion of B lymphocytes with myeloma cells, which resulted in generation of single mAbs against a specific Ag. Along with hybridoma technology, several novel and alternative methods have been developed to improve mAb generation, ranging from electrofusion to the discovery of completely novel technologies such as B cell immortalization; phage, yeast, bacterial, ribosome, and mammalian display systems; DNA/RNA encoded Abs; single B cell technology; transgenic animals; and artificial intelligence/machine learning. This commentary outlines the evolution, methodology, advantages, and limitations of various mAb production techniques. Furthermore, with the advent of next-generation Ab technologies such as single-chain variable fragments, nanobodies, bispecific Abs, Fc-engineered Abs, Ab biosimilars, Ab mimetics, and Ab-drug conjugates, the healthcare and pharmaceutical sectors have become resourceful to develop highly specific mAb treatments against various diseases such as cancer and autoimmune and infectious diseases.

Do the Outcomes of Clinical Efficacy Trials Matter in Regulatory Decision-Making for Biosimilars?

BACKGROUND

There is an increasing body of evidence supporting a more flexible approach in clinical data requirements for the approval of more complex biosimilar substances such as monoclonal antibodies (mAbs).

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this paper is to further analyse the role of quality/chemistry, manufacturing and controls (CMC) and clinical data for the conclusion on biosimilarity and the decision on marketing authorisation (MA).

METHODS

In the present study, we analysed the MA applications (MAAs) of all 33 mAbs and three fusion proteins evaluated by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) between July 2012 and November 2022 with special emphasis on all submitted rituximab (four products) and trastuzumab (seven products) biosimilar candidates, including withdrawn applications. For the two withdrawn applications, the comparative efficacy trials suggested biosimilarity, but the quality/CMC package was not accepted by EMA. We therefore investigated whether a negative MAA outcome could have been predicted based on the evidence generated in the quality/CMC packages, regardless of clinical trial data. For this purpose, we reviewed the respective European Public Assessment Reports (EPARs) or withdrawal assessment reports, and the first regulatory assessments for all these 36 MAAs (i.e. day 120 of the centralized procedure), which are not publicly available. During EMA review, where significant issues are identified which would preclude a marketing authorisation, these issues are raised as questions to the applicant and are classified as major objections (MO).

RESULTS

In 67% of cases, the outcome of the quality and clinical assessment was the same, i.e. both the quality and clinical assessments either supported approval or did not support approval. In 11% of cases, MO were identified in the quality part of the submission but not in the clinical data. In 22% of cases, MO were raised on the clinical data package but not on the quality data. However, we found no instance where seemingly negative clinical data, including failed efficacy trials, led to a negative overall decision. In each instance, the failure to confirm similar clinical performance in all investigated aspects was eventually viewed as not being related to the biosimilar per se but as being due to imbalances in the trial arms, immaturity of secondary endpoint results, change in the reference product, or even chance findings. Furthermore, when performing an in-depth analysis of the quality and clinical packages of trastuzumab and rituximab biosimilars, we found that in no case were clinical trial data necessary to resolve residual uncertainties regarding the quality part.

CONCLUSION

The results further support the argument that sufficient evidence for biosimilarity can be obtained from a combination of analytical and functional testing and pharmacokinetic studies which may also generate immunogenicity data. This calls into question the usefulness of comparative efficacy studies for the purposes of regulatory decision-making when approving biosimilar mAbs and fusion proteins.

Safety outcomes when switching between biosimilars and reference biologics: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Biosimilars are increasingly available for the treatment of many serious disorders, however some concerns persist about switching a patient to a biosimilar whose condition is stable while on the reference biologic. Randomized controlled studies and extension studies with a switch treatment period (STP) to or from a biosimilar and its reference biologic were identified from publicly available information maintained by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). These findings were augmented with data from peer reviewed publications containing information not captured in FDA reviews. Forty-four STPs were identified from 31 unique studies for 21 different biosimilars. Data were extracted and synthesized following PRISMA guidelines. Meta-analysis was conducted to estimate the overall risk difference across studies. A total of 5,252 patients who were switched to or from a biosimilar and its reference biologic were identified. Safety data including deaths, serious adverse events, and treatment discontinuation showed an overall risk difference (95% CI) of -0.00 (-0.00, 0.00), 0.00 (-0.01, 0.01), -0.00 (-0.01, 0.00) across STPs, respectively. Immunogenicity data showed similar incidence of anti-drug antibodies and neutralizing antibodies in patients within a STP who were switched to or from a biosimilar to its reference biologic and patients who were not switched. Immune related adverse events such as anaphylaxis, hypersensitivity reactions, and injections site reactions were similar in switched and non-switched patients. This first systematic review using statistical methods to address the risk of switching patients between reference biologics and biosimilars finds no difference in the safety profiles or immunogenicity rates in patients who were switched and those who remained on a reference biologic or a biosimilar.

Why is there no biosimilar of Erbitux®?

Monoclonal antibody (mAb)-based therapies have been a major advance in oncology patient care, even though they represent a significant healthcare cost. Biosimilars, launched in Europe in 2004 are an economically attractive alternative to expensive originator biological drugs. They also increase the competitiveness of pharmaceutical development. This article focuses on the case of Erbitux® (cetuximab). This anti-EGFR (Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor) monoclonal antibody is indicated for metastatic colorectal cancer (2004) and squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (2006). However, despite the expiration of the patent in Europe in 2014 and estimated annual sales of 1.681 million US dollars in 2022, Erbitux® has not yet faced any approved biosimilar challenges in the United States or in Europe. Here, we outline the unique structural complexity of this antibody highlighted by advanced orthogonal analytical characterization strategies resulting in risks to demonstrate biosimilarity, which may explain the lack of Erbitux® biosimilars in the European and US markets to date. The development of Erbitux® biobetters are also discussed as alternative strategies to biosimilars. These biologics offer expected additional safety and potency benefits over the reference product but require a full pharmaceutical and clinical development as for New Molecular Entities.

Multi-attribute method (MAM) to assess analytical comparability of adalimumab biosimilars

Adalimumab drug product (Humira ®), the first fully human monoclonal antibody (mAb) approved by FDA in 2002, led the top ten list of best-selling mAbs in 2018 and has been the most profitable drug in the world. With the expiration of patent protection in Europe in 2018 and in United States by 2023, the landscape is changing as up to 10 adalimumab biosimilars are expected to enter the market in the US. Biosimilars offer the potential to lower costs on health care systems and increase patient accessibility. The analytical similarity of seven different adalimumab biosimilars was accomplished in the present study using the multi-attribute method (MAM), a LC-MS based peptide mapping technique that allows for primary sequence assessment and evaluation of multiple quality attributes including deamidation, oxidation, succinimide formation, N- and C- terminal composition and detailed N-glycosylation analysis. In the first step, characterization of the most relevant post-translational modifications of a reference product was attained during the discovery phase of MAM. During the second step, as part of the MAM targeted monitoring phase, adalimumab batch-to batch variability was evaluated to define statistical intervals for the establishment of similarity ranges. The third step describes biosimilarity evaluation of predefined quality attributes and new peak detection for the assessment of any new or modified peak compared to the reference product. This study highlights a new perspective of the MAM approach and its underlying power for biotherapeutic comparability exercises in addition to analytical characterization. MAM offers a streamlined comparability assessment workflow based on high-confidence quality attribute analysis using high-resolution accurate mass mass spectrometry (HRAM MS) and the capability to detect any new or modified peak compared to the reference product.

Future Evolution of Biosimilar Development by Application of Current Science and Available Evidence: The Developer's Perspective

Biosimilars have been available in the USA for over a decade, and in Europe for almost two decades. In that time, biosimilars have become established in the treatment landscape for a wide range of diseases, facilitating patient access and affordability of healthcare. However, patients can still struggle to access biological therapies in some markets. There is a need to streamline the process of developing biosimilars without compromising their quality, safety, or efficacy. This opinion piece considers the efficiencies that could be achieved within the biosimilar approval process. In clinical trials for biosimilars, clinical efficacy endpoints have been shown to be less sensitive measures of biosimilarity than biochemical, biophysical, and biological functional assays. Additional clinical efficacy studies comparing potential biosimilars and reference products do not add information that is useful for regulatory purposes. Large clinical studies of biosimilars with immunogenicity endpoints are of limited value, given the quality control processes in place for all biologics, including biosimilars. The expectation for multiple-switch studies for US interchangeability designation should be reconsidered immediately, and the category should be eliminated in the future. As biosimilars are typically approved globally based on a single set of clinical trials, and all subsequent manufacturing changes are already carefully monitored by regulatory authorities, comparative pharmacokinetic testing of EU and US reference products is unnecessary. Manufacturers and regulators could take greater advantage of existing real-world evidence. Streamlining biosimilar development would enable biosimilar development of more and a wider variety of biological drugs, accelerating biosimilar development without impacting patient safety or effectiveness.

Impact of switching between reference biologics and biosimilars of tumour necrosis factor inhibitors for rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

What is the impact of switching between biologics and biosimilars of adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab on efficacy and safety for rheumatoid arthritis? A systematic review and network meta-analysis were performed to compare switching and non-switching groups of treatments. Pooled Risk Relative (RR) or standardised mean differences (SMD) with 95% credible intervals (95% CrIs) were obtained. Seventeen randomized trials with a switching phase involving 6,562 patients were included. Results showed that a single switch from biologics to biosimilars compared to continuing biologics had comparable effects for primary and co-primary outcomes, the American College of Rheumatology criteria with 20% response (ACR20) (7 trials, 1,926 patients, RR 0.98, 95% CrIs 0.93 to 1.03) and the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) (5 trials, 1,609 patients, SMD - 0.07, 95% CrIs - 0.23 to 0.1), and within the equivalence margins: ACR20 [RR 0.94, 1.06] and HAQ-DI [SMD - 0.22, 0.22]. The risk of treatment-emergent adverse events, discontinuation, and positive anti-drug antibodies were comparable after switching. Safety results were imprecise, and the follow-up period might not be sufficient to evaluate long-term effects, especially malignancies. Overall, the practice of single switching between approved biologics and biosimilars of Tumour Necrosis Factor inhibitors is efficacious and safe for rheumatoid arthritis.

Comparative Safety Profiles of Oncology Biosimilars vs. Originators in Europe: An Analysis of the EudraVigilance Database

In the last decades, the clinical management of oncology patients has been transformed by the introduction of biologics. The high costs associated with the development and production of biologics limit patient access to these therapies. The expiration of exclusive patents for biologics has led to the development and market introduction of biosimilars, offering the reduction of costs for cancer treatments. Biosimilars are highly similar to the reference products in terms of structure, biological activity, efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity. Therefore, the monitoring of biosimilars' safety in real-world clinical practice though pharmacovigilance is essential. This study aimed to analyze the post-marketing pharmacovigilance data of biosimilar monoclonal antibodies used in oncology and compare them with respective reference products. Data of a 2-year period (1 January 2021-31 December 2022) were retrieved from EudraVigilance, and descriptive and comparative analysis were performed using the Reporting Odds Ratio to evaluate the distribution of medicine-reaction pairs related to biosimilars of three antitumor biological products and their corresponding reference products: bevacizumab, rituximab, and trastuzumab. The results showed that most frequently reported ADRs for biosimilars were non-serious and consistent with the safety profiles of reference products. These findings provide reassurance regarding safety equivalence of biosimilars and support their use as valid alternatives to originator biologics.

The impact of policy interventions to promote the uptake of biosimilar medicines in Belgium: a nationwide interrupted time series analysis

BACKGROUND

The Belgian government has taken several measures to increase the uptake of biosimilars in past years. However, no formal evaluation of the impact of these measures has been made yet. This study aimed to investigate the impact of the implemented measures on biosimilar uptake.

METHODS

An interrupted time series analysis was performed using an autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) model with the Box-Jenkins method. All data were expressed as defined daily doses (DDD) per month/quarter and obtained from the Belgian National Institute for Health and Disability Insurance (NIHDI). Three molecules were included in the analysis: etanercept (ambulatory), filgrastim (hospital), and epoetin (hospital). A significance level of 5% was used for all analyses.

RESULTS

In the ambulatory care, the effect of a financial prescriber incentive of 2019 was investigated. After this intervention, 44.504 (95% CI -61.61 to -14.812; P < 0.001) fewer etanercept biosimilar DDDs were dispensed monthly than expected in the absence of the intervention. Two interventions were modelled for biosimilars in the hospital setting. The first intervention of 2016 includes prescription targets for biosimilars and monitoring of hospitals on adequate tendering. The second intervention involves an information campaign on biosimilars. After the first intervention, a small decrease in quarterly epoetin biosimilar uptake of 449.820 DDD (95% CI -880.113 to -19.527; P = 0.05) was observed. The second intervention led to a larger increase in quarterly epoetin biosimilar uptake of 2733.692 DDD (95% CI 1648.648-3818.736; P < 0.001). For filgrastim, 1809.833 DDD (95% CI 1354.797-2264.869; P < 0.001) more biosimilars were dispensed immediately after the first intervention and 151.639 DDD (95% CI -203.128 to -100.150; P < 0.001) fewer biosimilars each quarter after the first intervention. An immediate and sustained increase of 700.932 DDD (95% CI 180.536-1221.328; P = 0.016) in quarterly biosimilar volume was observed after the second intervention. All other parameter estimates were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study suggest that the impact of past policy interventions to increase the uptake of biosimilars has been variable and limited. A holistic policy framework is required to develop a competitive and sustainable off-patent biologicals market in Belgium.

Biosimilars and interchangeable biosimilars: facts every prescriber, payor, and patient should know. Insulins perspective

INTRODUCTION

For many of the 537 million adults living now with diabetes, the cost of insulin is becoming prohibitive as the insulin prices have tripled between 2002-2013. Globally, the direct annual cost of healthcare expenditure due to diabetes will soon be US$1 Trillion. Biosimilars provide access to high-quality, affordable biologic therapy that is otherwise inaccessible due to the high costs of original biologics.

AREAS COVERED

A primer to the development of biosimilars shows comparable structural and analytical characterization to the original biologics (e.g. insulins), with no clinically significant or meaningful differences in efficacy and safety. 'Interchangeability' status, a regulatory designation by the US FDA, bestowed to some biosimilars, enables confidence in high-quality, bio-equivalent biosimilar of insulin with key global approvals. This can allow rapid uptake of biosimilars by the prescribers, formulary decision-makers, and payors. Biocon-Viatris's biosimilar Insulin Glargine (Semglee®) is the first interchangeable biosimilar insulin approved by the US FDA.

EXPERT OPINION

The 'interchangeable' status can prompt faster and wider uptake of insulin biosimilars and keep the insulin expenditure under control, especially for patients who otherwise practice non-adherence or rationing of life-saving insulin. Education, support, and awareness can ensure that interchangeable biosimilars gain wider acceptance.

Assessing the Interchangeability of AVT02 and Humira® in Participants with Moderate‑to‑Severe Chronic Plaque Psoriasis: Pharmacokinetics, Efficacy, Safety, and Immunogenicity Results from a Multicenter, Double-Blind, Randomized, Parallel-Group Study

BACKGROUND

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) interchangeability guidelines state that the primary endpoint in a switching study should assess the impact of switching between the proposed interchangeable product and the reference product on clinical pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (if available), as these assessments are generally sensitive to changes in immunogenicity and/or exposure that may arise due to switching. In addition, interchangeability designation requires no clinically meaningful difference in safety and efficacy of switching between the biosimilar and reference, compared with when using the reference product alone.

OBJECTIVES

 The aim of this study was to investigate the PK, immunogenicity, efficacy, and safety in participants undergoing repeated switches between Humira^® and AVT02 as part of a global interchangeable development program.

METHODS

This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis comprises three parts: lead-in period (weeks 1-12), switching module (weeks 12-28), and the optional extension phase (weeks 28-52). Following the lead-in period during which all participants received the reference product (80 mg in week 1, followed by 40 mg every other week), participants with a clinical response of ≥ 75% improvement in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI75) were randomized 1:1 to receive AVT02 alternating with the reference product (switching arm) or reference product only (non-switching arm). At week 28, participants who were PASI50 responders could opt to take part in an open-label extension phase receiving AVT02 up to week 50, with an end of study visit at week 52. PK, safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy were evaluated at various timepoints throughout the study for both switching and non-switching arms.

RESULTS

In total, 550 participants were randomized to switching (277) and non-switching arms (273). The switching versus non-switching arithmetic least square means ratio [90% confidence intervals (CIs)] was 101.7% (91.4-112.0%) for the area under the concentration-time curve over the dosing interval from weeks 26-28 (AUC_{tau, W26-28}) and 108.1% (98.3-117.9%) for maximum concentration over the dosing interval from weeks 26-28 (C_{max, W26-28}). The 90% CIs for the switching versus non-switching arithmetic means ratio for primary endpoints AUC_{tau, W26-28} and C_{max, W26-28} were within the prespecified limits of 80-125%, demonstrating comparable PK profiles between groups. In addition, the PASI, Dermatology Life Quality Index, and static Physician's Global Assessment efficacy scores were highly similar for both treatment groups. There were no clinically meaningful differences between the immunogenicity and safety assessments of repeated switching between AVT02 and the reference product, versus the reference product alone.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated that the risk, in terms of safety or diminished efficacy of switching between the biosimilar and the reference product, is not greater than the risk of using the reference product alone, as required by the FDA for interchangeability designation. Beyond the scope of interchangeability, a consistent long-term safety and immunogenicity profile, with no impact on the trough levels up to 52 weeks, was established.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT04453137; date of registration: 1 July 2020.

SB8, an approved bevacizumab biosimilar based on totality of evidence: scientific justification of extrapolation

SB8 is a biosimilar of bevacizumab based on its similarity demonstrated by physicochemical, functional, non-clinical and clinical studies. Supported by the concept of extrapolation, SB8 was authorized and is used in a similar manner across all types of tumors as reference bevacizumab. Furthermore, SB8 offers convenience with prolonged stability compared with reference bevacizumab in diluted form. Although a biosimilar must demonstrate biosimilarity to a reference product with the 'totality of evidence' in a stringent regulatory process for marketing authorization, some concerns remain among healthcare practitioners, particularly about extrapolation. This review summarizes the concepts of the totality of evidence and extrapolation in biosimilar development and the role of bevacizumab biosimilars in the management of metastatic colorectal cancer as an extrapolated indication.

Severe Hypersensitivity Reactions at Biosimilar versus Originator Rituximab Treatment Initiation, Switch and Over Time: A Cohort Study on the French National Health Data System

BACKGROUND

Biosimilar products of rituximab came to market in 2017. French pharmacovigilance centers have highlighted an excess of case reports of severe hypersensitivity reactions related to their use compared with the originator product.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess the real-world association between biosimilar versus originator rituximab injections and hypersensitivity reactions, among initiators and switchers, at first injection and over time.

METHODS

The French National Health Data System was used to identify all rituximab users between 2017 and 2021. A first cohort consisted of patients who initiated rituximab (originator or biosimilar), while a second cohort consisted of originator-to-biosimilar switchers, matched on age, sex, deliveries history, and pathology, with one or two patients still receiving the originator product. The event of interest was defined as a hospitalization for anaphylactic shock or serum sickness following a rituximab injection.

RESULTS

A total of 91,894 patients were included in the initiation cohort-17,605 (19%) with the originator product and 74,289 (81%) with a biosimilar. At initiation, 86/17,605 (0.49%) and 339/74,289 (0.46%) events occurred in the originator and biosimilar groups, respectively. The adjusted odds ratio of biosimilar exposure associated with the event was 1.04 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.80-1.34), and the adjusted hazard ratio for biosimilar versus originator exposure was 1.15 (95% CI 0.93-1.42), showing no increased risk of event with biosimilar use at first injection, and over time. 17,123 switchers were matched to 24,659 non-switchers. No association was found between switch to biosimilars and occurrence of the event.

CONCLUSION

Our study does not support any association between exposure to rituximab biosimilars versus originator and hospitalization for a hypersensitivity reaction, either at initiation, at switch, or over time.

Ulcerative colitis (K51), adults

.

A Data Driven Approach to Support Tailored Clinical Programs for Biosimilar Monoclonal Antibodies

Biosimilar monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) have been approved in the European Union since 2013 and have been demonstrated to reduce healthcare costs and to expand patient access. Biosimilarity is mainly established on the basis of demonstrated similarity of relevant quality attributes (QAs), determined by comprehensive physiochemical and functional analyses, and demonstration of bioequivalence. In addition, comparative efficacy/safety studies have been requested for all approved biosimilar mAbs so far, although the European Medicines Agency (EMA) Guidelines state that such confirmatory clinical trials may not be necessary in specific circumstances. In order to evaluate the degree of analytical similarity, how residual uncertainty regarding biosimilarity was resolved, and the value of clinical data, we analyzed the quality and clinical data packages for authorized adalimumab (7 products) and bevacizumab (5 products) biosimilars. The percentage of biosimilar batches meeting the similarity range for QAs, as defined by the biosimilar manufacturer based on a comprehensive characterization of the EU reference product (RP), was determined and clinical data were reviewed. Our analyses show that QAs of approved adalimumab and bevacizumab biosimilars have varying concordance with the EU-RP similarity range. In this study, we found that clinical efficacy data played a limited role in addressing quality concerns. Therefore, we encourage a regulatory review of the standards for clinical data requirements for mAb and fusion protein biosimilars. This study outlines a quality data driven approach for facilitating tailored clinical programs for biosimilars.

Effectiveness and Safety of Zercepac and Reference Trastuzumab in the Neoadjuvant Setting for Early-Stage Breast Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Aim

Since the high cost of reference trastuzumab limits its clinical application, this study aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of the Zercepac and reference product trastuzumab in neoadjuvant therapy for HER2-positive breast cancer.

Methods

This study retrospectively collected clinical data of patients with early-stageHER2-positive breast cancer, who received trastuzumab, pertuzumab, docetaxel, and platinum as neoadjuvant therapy from November 2020 to July 2021. Patients were divided into the Zercepac and reference trastuzumab groups. Reduction in tumor size, clinical response based on RECIST1.1 criteria, pathological complete response (pCR), and adverse events (AEs) were evaluated. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to adjust confounders.

Results

A total of 105 patients were included in the study, among them, 65 were in the Zercepac group and 40 were in the reference trastuzumab group. The percentage of tumor shrinkage from baseline was comparable between the Zercepac and reference trastuzumab group (47.6 ± 18.6% vs. 43.0 ± 19.9%, p = 0.235). Clinical partial response rate was similar between the two groups (81.5% vs. 70.0%, p = 0.172). There were 28 cases of pCR (70.0%) in the reference trastuzumab group and 46 cases of pCR (70.8%) in the Zercepac group (p = 0.933). The choice of Zercepac or reference trastuzumab was not significantly associated with pCR (OR = 0.96, 95%CI: 0.41-2.28, p = 0.933). Adverse events (AEs) were observed in all patients, and the incidence of ≥3 grade AEs was comparable between the two groups (81.5% vs. 70.0%, p = 0.172).

Conclusion

Zercepac has similar effectiveness and safety profile compared with reference trastuzumab in neoadjuvant therapy, which provides treatment options for patients with HER2-positive breast cancer.

Assessing Immunogenicity of Biologic Drugs in Inflammatory Joint Diseases: Progress Towards Personalized Medicine

Biologic drugs have greatly improved treatment outcomes of inflammatory joint diseases, but a substantial proportion of patients either do not respond to treatment or lose response over time. Drug immunogenicity, manifested as the formation of anti-drug antibodies (ADAb), constitute a significant clinical problem. Anti-drug antibodies influence the pharmacokinetics of the drug, are associated with reduced clinical efficacy, and an increased risk of adverse events such as infusion reactions. The prevalence of ADAb differs among drugs and diseases, and the detection of ADAb also depends on the assay format. Most data exist for the tumor necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors infliximab and adalimumab, with a frequency of ADAb that ranges from 10 to 60% across studies. Measurement of ADAb and serum drug concentrations, therapeutic drug monitoring, has been suggested as a strategy to optimize therapy with biologic drugs. Although the recent randomized clinical Norwegian Drug Monitoring (NOR-DRUM) trials show promise towards a personalized medicine prescribing approach by therapeutic drug monitoring, several challenges remain. A plethora of assay formats, with widely differing properties, is currently used for measuring ADAb. Comparing results between different assays and laboratories is difficult, which complicates the development of cut-offs necessary for guidelines and the implementation of ADAb measurements in clinical practice. With the possible exception of infliximab, limited data on clinical relevance and cost effectiveness exist to support therapeutic drug monitoring as a routine clinical strategy to monitor biologic drugs in inflammatory joint diseases. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of the characteristics and prevalence of ADAb, predisposing factors to ADAb formation, commonly used assessment methods, clinical consequences of ADAb, and the potential implications of ADAb assessments for everyday treatment of inflammatory joint diseases.

Molecular Biosimilarity—An AI-Driven Paradigm Shift

Scientific, technical, and bioinformatics advances have made it possible to establish analytics-based molecular biosimilarity for the approval of biosimilars. If the molecular structure is identical and other product- and process-related attributes are comparable within the testing limits, then a biosimilar candidate will have the same safety and efficacy as its reference product. Classical testing in animals and patients is much less sensitive in terms of identifying clinically meaningful differences, as is reported in the literature. The recent artificial intelligence (AI)-based protein structure prediction model, AlphaFold-2, has confirmed that the primary structure of proteins always determines their 3D structure; thus, we can deduce that a biosimilar with an identical primary structure will have the same efficacy and safety. Further confirmation of the thesis has been established using technologies that are now much more sensitive. For example, mass spectrometry (MS) is thousands of times more sensitive and accurate when compared to any form of biological testing. While regulatory agencies have begun waiving animal testing and, in some cases, clinical efficacy testing, the removal of clinical pharmacology profiling brings with it a dramatic paradigm shift, reducing development costs without compromising safety or efficacy. A list of 160+ products that are ready to enter as biosimilars has been shared. Major actions from regulatory agencies and developers are required to facilitate this paradigm shift.

Switching from One Biosimilar to Another Biosimilar of the Same Reference Biologic: A Systematic Review of Studies

BACKGROUND

Multiple switches (transitions) between biosimilars of the same reference biologic are now a reality, and they are expected to become more common in the future as more biosimilars enter the market. Switching between two biosimilars of the same reference biologic is generally driven by affordability, formulary requirements, or the relocation/travel of the patient. Evidence of whether switching between biosimilars of the same reference biologic provides similar safety and efficacy profiles is reviewed here.

METHODS

A systematic search was undertaken using electronic databases (to December 2021): Biosis, Embase, MEDLINE, and EBM Reviews/Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews via Ovid. Publications were evaluated for effectiveness and/or safety data linked to switching from one biosimilar to another.

RESULTS

The systematic search yielded 982 citations. After eliminating duplicates, 626 citations remained for the initial title/abstract screening phase. Following the initial screening, 240 records were chosen; more thorough examination yielded 35 citations. After comprehensive screening and expert advice, 23 studies were selected, of which 13 were published in peer-reviewed journals; the remainder have been published as abstracts. Overall, 3657 patients were included in these studies. All studies were observational in nature; no randomized clinical trials were identified. The studies were heterogeneous in size, design, and endpoints. Across the studies, data are provided on safety, effectiveness, immunogenicity, pharmacokinetics, patient retention, patient and physician perceptions, and drug-use patterns. The majority of studies examined switches between biosimilar infliximabs, although switches between biosimilar adalimumabs, etanercepts, and rituximabs were also identified. Two use-pattern studies and one case report were also detected and are discussed.

CONCLUSION

Within the limitations of this systematic review, available data suggests that biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching is a safe and effective clinical practice, although it is not covered by current health authority regulations or guidance. No reduction in effectiveness or increase in adverse events was detected in biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching studies conducted to date.

How to select a best-value biological medicine? A practical model to support hospital pharmacists

DISCLAIMER

In an effort to expedite the publication of articles related to the COVID-19 pandemic, AJHP is posting these manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time.

PURPOSE

With the growing availability of biosimilars on the global market, clinicians and pharmacists have multiple off-patent biological products to choose from. Besides the competitiveness of the product's price, other criteria should be considered when selecting a best-value biological. This article aims to provide a model to facilitate transparent best-value biological selection in the off-patent biological medicines segment.

SUMMARY

The presented model was developed on the basis of established multicriteria decision analysis tools for rational and transparent medicine selection, ie, the System of Objectified Judgement Analysis and InforMatrix. Criteria for the model were informed by earlier research, a literature search, and evaluation by the authors. The developed model includes up-to-date guidance on criteria that can be considered in selection and provides background on the allocation of weights that may aid hospital pharmacists and clinicians with decision-making in practice. Three main categories of criteria besides price were identified and included in the model: (1) product-driven criteria, (2) service-driven criteria, and (3) patient-driven criteria. Product-driven criteria include technical product features and licensed therapeutic indications. Service-driven criteria consist of supply conditions, value-added services, and environment and sustainability criteria. Patient-driven criteria contain product administration elements such as ease of use and service elements such as patient support programs. Relative weighting of the criteria is largely context dependent and should in a given setting be determined at the beginning of the process.

CONCLUSION

The practical model described here may support hospital pharmacists and clinicians with transparent and evidence-based best-value biological selection in clinical practice.

Under the Umbrella of Clinical Pharmacology: Inflammatory Bowel Disease, Infliximab and Adalimumab, and a Bridge to an Era of Biosimilars

Monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) have revolutionized the treatment of many chronic inflammatory diseases, including inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). IBD is a term that comprises two quite similar, yet distinctive, disorders—Crohn’s disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC). Two blockbuster MAbs, infliximab (IFX) and adalimumab (ADL), transformed the pharmacological approach of treating CD and UC. However, due to the complex interplay of pharmacology and immunology, MAbs face challenges related to their immunogenicity, effectiveness, and safety. To ease the burden of IBD and other severe diseases, biosimilars have emerged as a cost-effective alternative to an originator product. According to the current knowledge, biosimilars of IFX and ADL in IBD patients are shown to be as safe and effective as their originators. The future of biosimilars, in general, is promising due to the potential of making the health care system more sustainable. However, their use is accompanied by misconceptions regarding their effectiveness and safety, as well as by controversy regarding their interchangeability. Hence, until a scientific consensus is achieved, scientific data on the long-term effectiveness and safety of biosimilars are needed.

Biosimilars: Harmonizing the Approval Guidelines

Biosimilar approval guidelines need rationalization and harmonization to remove the inconsistencies and misconceptions to enable faster, safer, and more cost-effective biosimilars. This paper proposes a platform for a model guideline based on the scientific evaluation of the regulatory filings of the 130+ products approved in the US, UK, and EU and hundreds more in the WHO member countries. Extensive literature survey of clinical data published and reported, including Clinicaltrials.gov, a review of all current guidelines in the US, UK and EU, and WHO, and detailed discussions with the FDA have confirmed that removing the animal and clinical efficacy testing and fixing other minor approaches will enable the creation of a harmonized guideline that will best suit an ICH designation.

Regulatory Information and Guidance on Biosimilars and Their Use Across Europe: A Call for Strengthened One Voice Messaging

Background

Beyond evaluation and approval, European and national regulators have a key role in providing reliable information on biosimilars and the science underpinning their development, approval, and use.

Objectives

This study aims to (i) review biosimilar information and guidance provided by EMA and national medicines agencies and (ii) explore stakeholder perspectives on the role of regulators in enabling acceptance and use of biosimilars.

Methods

This study consists of (i) a comparative review of regulatory information and position statements across medicine agencies (n = 32) and (ii) qualitative interviews with stakeholders in Europe (n = 14).

Results

The comparative analysis showed that regulatory information and guidance about biosimilars offered by national medicines agencies in Europe varies, and is limited or absent in multiple instances. Approximately 40% (13/31) of the national medicines agencies' websites did not offer any information regarding biosimilars, and for about half (15/31) no educational materials were provided. Only less than half of national medicines agencies provided guidance on biosimilar interchangeability and switching (8/31 and 12/31, respectively). Among the national medicines agencies that did offer guidance, the extent (e.g., elaborate position vs. brief statement) and content (e.g., full endorsement vs. more cautious) of the guidance differed substantially. Countries that have a strong involvement in EU level biosimilar regulatory activities generally had more elaborate information nationally. Interviewees underwrote the need for (national) regulators to intensify biosimilar stakeholder guidance, especially in terms of providing clear positions regarding biosimilar interchangeability and switching, which in turn can be disseminated by the relevant professional societies more locally.

Conclusion

This study revealed that, despite strong EU-level regulatory biosimilar guidance, guidance about biosimilars, and their use differs considerably across Member States. This heterogeneity, together with the absence of a clear EU-wide position on interchangeability, may instill uncertainty among stakeholders about the appropriate use of biosimilars in practice. Regulators should strive for a clear and common EU scientific position on biosimilar interchangeability to bridge this gap and unambiguously inform policy makers, healthcare professionals, and patients. Furthermore, there is a clear opportunity to expand information at the national level, and leverage EU-developed information materials more actively in this regard.

Interchangeability of biosimilars: A study of expert views and visions regarding the science and substitution

Healthcare systems have reached a critical point regarding the question of whether biosimilar substitution should become common practice. To move the discussion forward, the study objective was to investigate the views of experts from medicines agencies and the pharmaceutical industry on the science underpinning interchangeability of biosimilars. We conducted an empirical qualitative study using semi-structured interviews informed by a cross-disciplinary approach encompassing regulatory science, law, and pharmaceutical policy. In total 25 individuals with experience within biologics participated during September 2018-August 2019. Eight participants were EU national medicines authority regulators, and 17 had pharmaceutical industry background: five from two originator-only companies, four from two companies with both biosimilar and originator products, and eight from seven biosimilar-only companies. Two analysts independently conducted inductive content analysis, resulting in data-driven themes capturing the meaning of the data. The participants reported that interchangeability was more than a scientific question of likeness between biosimilar and reference products: it also pertained to regulatory practices and trust. Participants were overall confident in the science behind exchanging biosimilar products for the reference products via switching, i.e., with physician involvement. However, their opinions differed regarding the scientific risk associated with biosimilar substitution, i.e., without physician involvement. Almost all participants saw no need for additional scientific data to support substitution. Moreover, the participants did not believe that switching studies, as required in the US, were appropriate for obtaining scientific certainty due to their small size. It is unclear why biosimilar switching is viewed as scientifically safer than substitution; therefore, we expect greater policy debate on biosimilar substitution in the near future. We urge European and UK policymakers and regulators to clarify their visions for biosimilar substitution; the positions of these two frontrunners are likely to influence other jurisdictions on the future of biosimilar use.

Regulatory Evaluation of Biosimilars: Refinement of Principles Based on the Scientific Evidence and Clinical Experience

The World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines on evaluation of similar biotherapeutic products (SBPs; also called biosimilars) were adopted by the WHO Expert Committee on Biological Standardization (ECBS) in 2009. In 2019, the ECBS considered that a more tailored and potentially reduced clinical data package may be acceptable in cases where this was clearly supported by the available scientific evidence. The goal of this publication is to review the current clinical experience and scientific evidence and to provide an expert perspective for updating the WHO guidelines to provide more flexibility and clarity. As the first step, the relevant guidelines by other regulatory bodies were reviewed in order to identify issues that might help with updating the WHO guidelines. Next, a literature search was conducted for information on the long-term efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of biosimilars to identify possible long-term problems. Finally, a search for articles concerning the role of clinical studies in the benefit-risk evaluation of biosimilars was conducted. The analysis of other guidelines suggested that the WHO guidelines may need more emphasis on the importance of the state-of-the-art physicochemical and structural comparability exercise and in vitro functional testing. The use of "foreign" reference product will also need clarifications. The value of in vivo toxicological tests in the development of biosimilars is questionable, and the non-clinical part needs revisions accordingly. The concepts of "totality of evidence," "stepwise development," and "residual uncertainty" were applied in the evaluation of the clinical sections of the guideline. The review of long-term safety and efficacy demonstrated the robustness of the current biosimilar development concept. The analysis of the roles of different development phases suggested that the large efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity studies are, in most cases, redundant. The residual uncertainty of safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of biosimilars that has shaped the current regulatory guidelines is now substantially reduced. This will allow the re-evaluation of the non-clinical and clinical requirements of the current WHO main guideline. The shift of the relative impact of the development phases towards physico-chemical and in vitro functional testing will provide a relief to the manufacturers and new challenges to the regulators.