Pragmatic rules for comparability of biological medicinal products

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

[Cerebrolysin in the treatment of cognitive impairment]

Cognitive impairment is one of the most important problems of modern health care. Currently, according to WHO, more than 55 million people worldwide are living with dementia. Dementia is one of the leading causes of disability and addiction among older people worldwide. Even more significant is the number of patients with mild cognitive impairment who have an increased risk of progression to dementia compared to people of the same age without cognitive impairment. The number of patients with cognitive impairment has also increased due to the consequences of COVID-19. It is necessary to use drugs that not only improve cognitive functions, but also slow down their progression. One of these drugs is cerebrolysin, the effectiveness of which has been confirmed in various types of cognitive impairment. Cerebrolysin, being a preparation from the brain of a pig, belongs to the group of biological drugs. In the production of Cerebrolysin very strict measures are taken to comply with the technology, which ensures the quality and identity of the product from batch to batch. The experience of many years of clinical use of Cerebrolysin testifies not only to its high efficiency, but also to its safety. It should be taken into account that similar substances can be developed in relation to biological products - biosimilars or biosimilars, which can be considered comparable only in case of equivalent pharmacokinetic parameters, efficacy and safety.

Biosimilar-to-Biosimilar Switching: What is the Rationale and Current Experience?

Over time, clinicians have become increasingly comfortable embracing the prescription of biosimilars-highly similar versions of innovator or reference biological agents-for their patients with inflammatory diseases. Although a switch from a reference product to a licensed biosimilar version (or vice versa) is a medical decision robustly supported by the stepwise accumulation of clinical trial evidence concerning comparable safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy between these products, a switch from one biosimilar to another biosimilar of the same reference product, or a cross-switch, is not. Similarity among biosimilars of a reference product is not a regulatory agency concern and therefore is unlikely to be investigated in randomized controlled trials in the foreseeable future. Yet in clinical practice, across a diverse range of patients, the option to cross-switch from one biosimilar to another can and does arise for valid reasons such as convenience or tolerability issues, or driven by third parties (e.g., payers). In the absence of clinical trial data, clinicians must attempt to objectively evaluate the emerging real-world cross-switching evidence within the context of what is known about the science underpinning a designation of biosimilar. That knowledge then needs to be integrated with what clinicians know about their patients and their disease on a case-by-case basis. This review aims to consolidate relevant emerging real-world data and other key information about biosimilar-to-biosimilar cross-switching for prescribing clinicians. In the absence of clear clinical guidelines addressing this topic at present, this review may serve to facilitate discretionary and educated treatment decision making.

Biosimilar Use in Breast Cancer Treatment: A National Survey of Brazilian Oncologists' Opinions, Practices, and Concerns

PURPOSE

Breast cancer is the most common malignancy in Brazilian women, with 66,280 new cases in 2020 (with 20% overexpressing human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 [HER2]). The trastuzumab biosimilar was the first oncology biosimilar approved in Brazil for HER2-positive breast cancer treatment. This study aimed to assess the current level of knowledge of biosimilars, comfort of use, extrapolation indications, and switching of practices among oncologists in Brazil.

METHODS

A 24-question survey was developed using an online platform that sought information regarding responders' characteristics and use of biosimilars. The survey analyzed the basic knowledge of biosimilars, trastuzumab biosimilars, level of comfort with extrapolation, switching treatment regimens, and opinions concerning the cost of HER2-positive breast cancer therapy. Data were collected between July and September 2019 and included 144 oncologists from five Brazilian regions.

RESULTS

In total, 95% of respondents could identify the most appropriate definition of biosimilars and 96% felt comfortable prescribing trastuzumab biosimilars. Although 63% of respondents would use the biosimilar in all settings wherein the reference biologic was approved, 35% would use the biosimilar for cases involving metastatic disease. Although 82% of oncologists were in favor of switching from a reference biologic to a biosimilar, 18% would avoid switching regimens. The lack of studies detailing switching to other regimens and the correct timing to switch was the major concern. The cost of HER2 therapy was a significant concern for most oncologists.

CONCLUSION

Oncologists demonstrated a high level of knowledge of biosimilars and encouraging levels of prescriber use; however, extrapolation and switching treatment regimens are barriers to the effective use of biosimilars in cancer treatment. Efforts should be concentrated on strategies involving medical education programs on biosimilars.

Comparability of Biologics: Global Principles, Evidentiary Consistency and Unrealized Reliance

The principles of comparability assessments have been accepted globally as offering sensitive and reliable tools with which to evaluate potential changes to biologics that may arise either through processing changes or through the creation of a copy (biosimilar) by a different sponsor. The comparability approach has evolved through systematic advances in four areas: clear and convergent guidelines for evaluation of potential changes to biologics; risk-based systems of weighting analytical data; progressive improvements in analytical methods; and advanced understanding of post-translational modifications. Routine regulatory expectations for clinical equivalence data are being reevaluated, as they seldom contribute to the assessment of similarity. Similarly, we show that requirements to compare biosimilars and locally sourced versions of their reference products are of questionable scientific value and represent a double standard by comparison with the invariable acceptance of the clinical profiles of novel biologics without reference to their sources. The consistent application of evidentiary standards for comparability to all biologics offers an opportunity for regulators to curtail their own assessments of new biosimilars and instead to recognize comparability assessments made in another jurisdiction (reliance), thereby gaining important efficiencies in the regulatory review of biosimilars and improving the competitiveness of the biosimilars market. Such consistency can also enhance the confidence of all stakeholders, especially patients and their providers, in all biologics.

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

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

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

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