Comparing Originator Biologics and Biosimilars: A Review of the Relevant Issues

Anti-TNFα in inflammatory bowel disease: from originators to biosimilars

The introduction of anti-tumor necrosis factor α (TNFα) biologics significantly innovated inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) treatment and increased medical costs. The recent expiration of patents of some anti-TNFα biologics (such as infliximab and adalimumab) facilitated the development of biosimilars. Comparable pharmacokinetic, efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity profiles between anti-TNFα originators and biosimilars were demonstrated in different studies. Anti-TNFα biosimilars hold promise for reducing the high cost of biologics and increasing patient access to biologics. In this review, we outline the current data on the use of anti-TNFα originators and biosimilars in patients with IBD, with a focus on the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity profiles of infliximab and adalimumab biosimilars. The potential benefits, challenges, and future directions of anti-TNFα biosimilars are also discussed in the review.

An Overview of Biosimilars-Development, Quality, Regulatory Issues, and Management in Healthcare

Biological therapies have transformed high-burden treatments. As the patent and exclusivity period for biological medicines draws to a close, there is a possibility for the development and authorization of biosimilars. These products boast comparable levels of safety, quality, and effectiveness to their precursor reference products. Biosimilars, although similar to reference products, are not identical copies and should not be considered generic substitutes for the original. Their development and evaluation involve a rigorous step-by-step process that includes analytical, functional, and nonclinical evaluations and clinical trials. Clinical studies conducted for biosimilars aim to establish similar efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity, rather than demonstrating a clinical benefit, as with the reference product. However, although the current knowledge regarding biosimilars has significantly increased, several controversies and misconceptions still exist regarding their immunogenicity, extrapolation, interchangeability, substitution, and nomenclature. The development of biosimilars stimulates market competition, contributes toward healthcare sustainability, and allows for greater patient access. However, maximizing the benefits of biosimilars requires cooperation between regulators and developers to ensure that patients can benefit quickly from access to these new therapeutic alternatives while maintaining high standards of quality, safety, and efficacy. Recognizing the inherent complexities of comprehending biosimilars fully, it is essential to focus on realistic approaches, such as fostering open communication between healthcare providers and patients, encouraging informed decision-making, and minimizing risks. This review addresses the regulatory and manufacturing requirements for biosimilars and provides clinicians with relevant insights for informed prescribing.

Understanding Biosimilar Insulins - Development, Manufacturing, and Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

A wave of expiring patents for first-generation insulin analogues has created opportunities in the global insulin market for highly similar versions of these products, biosimilar insulins. Biologics are generally large, complex molecules produced through biotechnology in a living system, such as a microorganism, plant cell, or animal cell. Since manufacturing processes of biologics vary, biosimilars cannot be exact copies of their reference product but must exhibit a high degree of functional and structural similarity. Biosimilarity is proven by analytical approaches in comparative assessments, preclinical cell-based and animal studies, as well as clinical studies in humans facilitating the accumulation of evidence across all assessments. The approval of biosimilars follows detailed regulatory pathways derived from those of their reference products and established by agencies such as the European Medicines Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration. Regulatory authorities impose requirements to ensure that biosimilars meet high standards of quality, safety, and efficacy and are highly similar to their reference product.

PURPOSE

This review aims to aid clinical understanding of the high standards of development, manufacturing, and regulation of biosimilar insulins.

METHODS

Recent relevant studies indexed by PubMed and regulatory documents were included.

CONCLUSIONS

Driven by price competition, the emergence of biosimilar insulins may help expand global access to current insulin analogues. To maximize the impact of the advantage for falling retail costs of biosimilar insulins compared with that of reference insulins, healthcare professionals and insulin users must gain further awareness and confidence.

The landscape of biosimilars in Saudi Arabia: preparing for the next decade

INTRODUCTION

The government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) has developed a well-defined strategy to restructure the health sector and operate on value-based principles. Biosimilars are a viable option for increasing accessibility while lowering health-care costs.

AREAS COVERED

We describe the current and future biosimilar landscape in KSA. We discuss the growth of the biosimilar market, the regulatory approval process, biosimilar adoption, and the potential impact on health-care systems and patient outcomes.

EXPERT OPINION

The biosimilar market in KSA is expanding and expected to continue this trajectory in the coming decade. The growth of the market is influenced by the KSA health transformation initiative, the well-defined regulatory framework for biosimilars set by the Saudi Food and Drug Authority (SFDA), and the adoption of biosimilars by health-care providers. Overall, the biosimilar regulation is evolving and the future of biosimilars looks promising in KSA. Biosimilars offer a more cost-effective alternative, which can help to expand access to more treatment options for patients and contribute to cost saving for the health-care system.

Fluorapatite and fluorohydroxyapatite apatite surfaces drive adipose-derived stem cells to an osteogenic lineage

PURPOSE

Hydroxyapatite (HA) scaffolds are common replacement materials used in the clinical management of critical-sized bone defects. This study was undertaken to examine the potential benefits of fluoridated derivatives of hydroxyapatite, fluorapatite (FA), and fluorohydroxyapatite (FHA) as bone scaffolds in conjunction with adipose-derived stem cells (ADSCs). If FHA and FA surfaces could drive the differentiation of stem cells to an osteogenic phenotype, the combination of these ceramic scaffolds with ADSCs could produce materials with mechanical strength and remodeling potential comparable to autologous bone. This study was designed to investigate the ability of the apatite surfaces HA, FA, and FHA produced at different sintering temperatures to drive ADSCs toward osteogenic lineages.

METHODS

HA, FHA, and FA surfaces sintered at 1150 °C and 1250 °C were seeded with ADSCs and evaluated for cell growth and gene and protein expression of osteogenic markers at 2 and 10 days post-seeding.

RESULTS

In vitro, ADSC cells were viable on all surfaces; however, differentiation of these cells into osteoblastic lineage only observed in apatite surfaces. ADSCs seeded on FA and FHA expressed genes and proteins related to osteogenic differentiation markers to a greater extent by Day 2 when compared to HA and cell culture controls. By day 10, HA, FA, and FHA all expressed more bone differentiation markers compared to cell culture controls.

CONCLUSION

FA and FHA apatite scaffolds may promote the differentiation of ADSCs at an earlier time point than HA surfaces. Combining apatite scaffolds with ADSCs has the potential to improve bone regeneration following bone injury.

Statistical Equivalence Testing of Higher-Order Protein Structures with Differential Hydrogen Exchange-Mass Spectrometry (HX-MS)

Hydrogen exchange-mass spectrometry (HX-MS) is widely recognized for its potential utility for establishing the equivalence of the higher-order structures of proteins, particularly in comparability and similarity contexts. However, recent progress in the statistical analysis of HX-MS data has instead placed an emphasis on significance testing to identify regions of proteins where there are significant differences in HX between two or more protein states. In the cases involving assessment of similarity or equivalence of the higher-order structure of different protein samples (e.g., biosimilars), significance testing of HX-MS data is unsuitable. To meet this need, we have adapted the univariate two one-sided test (TOST) equivalence testing method for HX-MS data. Equivalence acceptance criteria were determined using maximum deviations from randomized resampling of truly equivalent samples to define hybrid equivalence criteria (maximum deviation of true equivalents, MDTE). Application of the TOST-MDTE test on differential HX-MS measurements of wild-type and mutated maltose-binding proteins demonstrates that the equivalence testing method was fit-for-purpose. Three infliximab biosimilars (Remsima, Renflexis, and Inflectra) were found to be equivalent to their Remicade reference product based on differential HX-MS measurements, while 5% deglycosylated NIST mAb was not statistically equivalent to the unmodified NIST mAb reference.

Explaining biosimilars and how reverse engineering plays a critical role in their development

INTRODUCTION

Biologicals are protein-based therapeutics consisting of larger and more complex structures than small molecule medicines. As the patents for originator biological therapeutics expire, biosimilar products are licensed for the same indications as their marketed reference biologics across different specialities. Owing to the complex nature of the manufacturing process for a biological therapy compared to conventional chemically synthetized medicines, the development of biosimilars is more complicated and costly than the manufacture of generic small molecules.

AREAS COVERED

The manufacturing process of the originator biologic is in most cases largely unknown to biosimilar developers and therefore reverse engineering through extensive analysis of the originator is a fundamental and critical step for successful biosimilar development. In this review, the authors examine the abbreviated roadmap for biosimilar approval which must be underpinned by the same rigorous standards that apply to all biological medicines. They discuss various aspects of biosimilar manufacturing with a focus on reverse engineering.

EXPERT OPINION

The biosimilar approval pathway places a greater emphasis on preclinical assessments in comparison to the development of originator biologics. Multiple comparative clinical studies add little to the confirmation of the efficacy of the molecule under study whilst adding considerably to the cost and time of bringing a biosimilar into clinical use. A successful demonstration of biosimilarity to the reference product is therefore essential at a structural and functional level but this could not be achieved without well-designed and quality-driven reverse engineering of the originator production process.

Biosimilars: Exploring the History, Science, and Progress

BACKGROUND

Biosimilars provide opportunities for improving healthcare access and outcomes and reducing overall healthcare costs for patients with cancer.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this article is to explore the history of biosimilars, regulatory pathways, and barriers to biosimilar approval. This article also aims to describe the patient and clinician barriers to biosimilars use and the progress that has been achieved since the first biosimilar approval in Europe in 2006 and in the United States in 2015.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted to retrieve articles that are highly relevant to the history of biosimilars development and regulatory pathways in the United States, Europe, Asia, and Canada. Patient and clinician perspectives on safety issues and concerns regarding immunogenicity and bioequivalence that limit use of biosimilars are also included.

FINDINGS

Patient and provider concerns regarding immunologic patient safety issues, such as immunogenicity, lack of comparability, and low biosimilarity, still exist. The clinical safety, efficacy, and tolerability of biosimilars are among the top concerns in patients, prescribers, and clinicians.

Barriers towards effective pharmacovigilance systems of biosimilars in rheumatology: A Latin American survey

Purpose

This review summarises the current status of regulatory guidelines for the approval of biosimilars in Latin America and highlights the main barriers to effective pharmacovigilance in this region. We also report results from a survey of Latin American rheumatologists assessing their understanding of prescribing biosimilars and the pharmacovigilance of these drugs.

Methods

We reviewed the current guidelines for the regulatory approval of biosimilars and barriers to effective pharmacovigilance in Latin American countries. Rheumatologists attending the II Pan‐American League of Rheumatology Associations PANLAR Review Course (Biosimilars update) in Lima, Peru were asked to complete a short survey to determine their knowledge of biosimilars.

Results

Many Latin American countries continue to lag behind Europe and the United States in establishing regulatory guidance and effective pharmacovigilance systems for biosimilars. Results from our survey also highlight a lack of awareness regarding the availability of biosimilars, their nomenclature, automatic substitution, and reporting adverse drug reactions because of these drugs.

Conclusions

The main barriers to effective pharmacovigilance in Latin America are the lack of consensus on the interchangeability of reference biologics and biosimilars, and the need for more suitably trained personnel to carry out effective postmarketing pharmacovigilance of biosimilars. Inconsistencies in biosimilar nomenclature make it difficult to adequately trace drugs and record adverse drug reactions associated with their use, creating a barrier to the global pharmacovigilance of biologics.

Biosimilar medicines used for cancer therapy in Europe: a review

This article provides an updated review of the biosimilar medicines approved for cancer therapy in the European Union (EU). First we discuss the most relevant aspects for the development and approval of biosimilar medicines. We then present the oncological biosimilar drugs currently used, which include epoetins (alpha and zeta), filgrastim, and monoclonal antibodies (rituximab, trastuzumab and bevacizumab). Among the clinical applications of biosimilar medicines, cancer therapy remains the main target area and more approved biosimilars are expected over the next few years, providing cost-effective drugs to more patients. Furthermore, comprehensive pharmacovigilance studies are going on, monitoring the marketed biosimilars, and providing more feasible information to clinicians regarding the safety and efficacy of these medications.

Phosphorylation of intracellular signalling molecules in peripheral blood cells from patients with psoriasis on originator or biosimilar infliximab

BACKGROUND

Psoriasis vulgaris is a chronic, inflammatory skin disease characterized by a dysregulated immune response and it is associated with substantial systemic comorbidities. Biological drugs such as tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-α inhibitors can ameliorate the disease but are expensive. Biosimilar drugs have the same amino-acid sequence as the originator, but differences in manufacturing can affect biological activity, efficacy and tolerability.

OBJECTIVES

To explore potential differences in intracellular phosphorylation of signalling molecules in peripheral blood cells from patients with psoriasis treated with the TNF-α inhibitor infliximab compared with healthy controls, and to investigate if the phosphorylation pattern was influenced by switching from the originator infliximab to the biosimilar CT-P13.

METHODS

By flow cytometry, we measured phosphorylation of nuclear factor kappa B, extracellular signal-regulated kinase 1/2, p38 mitogen-activated protein kinase and signal transducer and activator of transcription 3, before and after TNF-α stimulation in monocytes and T, B, natural killer and CD3⁺  CD56⁺ cells from 25 patients with psoriasis treated with infliximab and 19 healthy controls.

RESULTS

At inclusion, phosphorylation levels of peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) were increased in patients with psoriasis compared with healthy controls, even though clinical remission had already been achieved. Phosphorylation levels declined in patients on both originator infliximab and biosimilar during continued treatment. No significant differences were detected between the two medications after 12 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with psoriasis on infliximab have higher activation levels of PBMCs than do healthy controls, possibly reflecting systemic inflammation. Switching from the originator infliximab to biosimilar CT-P13 did not affect phosphorylation levels or clinical parameters, suggesting that CT-P13 is a noninferior treatment alternative to the originator infliximab.

Update on Biosimilars in Asia

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review provides an update on the evolution of, manufacturing of, and regulations for biosimilars in Asian countries.

RECENT FINDINGS

The use of biologics revolutionized the treatment of various diseases. However, the high cost of biologics remained unaffordable for most Asian patients and increases the financial burden of Asian governments. The development of biosimilars provides the best solution for this predicament. A great boom of biosimilars is developing in Asia. Hundreds of biopharmaceutical companies have established their manufacturing facilities and provide affordable products for Asian patients. Regulation guidelines and international harmonization are evolving. Better manufacturing quality and post-market pharmacovigilance are needed in Asia despite the rapid evolution of biosimilar development.

Efficacy and safety of biosimilar insulins compared to their reference products: A systematic review

Importance

For nearly a century, no generic form of insulin has been available in the United States. However, the first biosimilar insulin, Basaglar, was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2015, and subsequently Admelog and Lusduna in 2017.

Objective

To summarize the scientific evidence comparing the safety, efficacy, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of biosimilar and reference insulin products.

Data sources

We conducted a systematic review using PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, Latin America and Caribbean Health Sciences, South Asian Database of Controlled Clinical Trials, and IndiaMED from their inception through January 14, 2018.

Study selection

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing safety, clinical efficacy, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of any biosimilar insulin with a reference product in adults regardless of sample size and location.

Data extraction and synthesis

Two researchers independently reviewed all titles, abstracts and text; extracted data; and performed quality assessments.

Main outcomes and measures

Efficacy, safety, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of biosimilar and reference insulin products

Results

Of 6945 articles screened, 11 studies were included in the data synthesis. LY2963016, Basalog, Basalin, and MK-1293 were compared to Lantus while SAR342434 was compared to Humalog. Three trials enrolled healthy volunteers, five enrolled type 1 diabetics, and two enrolled type 2 diabetics. One study enrolled both healthy and type 1 diabetics. Of the eleven studies, six examined pharmacokinetic and/or pharmacodynamic parameters and five examined clinical efficacy and immunogenicity. All studies included adverse events. All PK and/or PD studies showed that comparable parameters of biosimilar and reference products were within the pre-specified equivalence margins. Clinical studies suggested similar clinical efficacy and immunogenicity. Adverse events were similar between the groups across all studies.

Conclusions and relevance

Few published studies have compared biosimilar and reference insulins, though those that did suggest that the biosimilars have comparable safety and clinical efficacy as its reference product.