Risk-Based Comparability Assessment for Monoclonal Antibodies During Drug Development: A Clinical Pharmacology Perspective

Comparative Pharmacokinetics and Safety Assessment of 1st- and 2nd-Generation Zinpentraxin Alfa Drug Products in Healthy Volunteers: A Randomized Crossover Study

Zinpentraxin alfa is a recombinant form of the human pentraxin-2 that was studied in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). To improve the purity and yield of the drug material, a 2nd-generation drug product was developed. To characterize and compare the pharmacokinetic (PK) properties of the 1st- and 2nd-generation zinpentraxin alfa, PK studies were conducted in healthy volunteers (HVs). In a phase 1 randomized, double-blind, 2-sequence crossover, sequential 2-stage study (ISRCTN59409907), single intravenous (IV) doses of 1st- and 2nd-generation zinpentraxin alfa at 10 mg/kg were studied with a blinded interim analysis (IA) at the end of stage 1. Bioequivalence (BE) was achieved for the maximum observed plasma concentration (Cmax), but the overall exposure was higher for the 2nd- compared to the 1st-generation zinpentraxin alfa. The study was stopped after stage 1 as the gating criteria were met based on the result of the blinded IA. Safety profiles were similar for the 1st- and 2nd-generation drug products, and antidrug antibody (ADA) was not observed in this study.

An Industry Perspective on the use of Forced Degradation Studies to Assess Comparability of Biopharmaceuticals

Forced degradation, also known as stress testing, is used throughout pharmaceutical development for many purposes including assessing the comparability of biopharmaceutical products according to ICH Guideline Q5E. These formal comparability studies, the results of which are submitted to health authorities, investigate potential impacts of manufacturing process changes on the quality, safety, and efficacy of the drug. Despite the wide use of forced degradation in comparability assessments, detailed guidance on the design and interpretation of such studies is scarce. The BioPhorum Development Group is an industry-wide consortium enabling networking and sharing of common practices for the development of biopharmaceuticals. The BioPhorum Development Group Forced Degradation Workstream recently conducted several group discussions and a benchmarking survey to understand current industry approaches for the use of forced degradation studies to assess comparability of protein-based biopharmaceuticals. The results provide insight into the design of forced degradation studies, analytical characterization and testing strategies, data evaluation criteria, as well as some considerations and differences for non-platform modalities (e.g., non-traditional mAbs). This article presents survey responses from several global companies of various sizes and provides an industry perspective and experience regarding the practicalities of using forced degradation to assess comparability.

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.

Comparability Considerations and Challenges for Expedited Development Programs for Biological Products

Expedited development programs for biological products to be used in the treatment of serious conditions bring about challenges because of the compressed clinical development timeframes. As expedited development does not lessen the quality expectations, one challenge is providing adequate chemistry, manufacturing, and control (CMC) information required to support approval of a biological product. In particular, the analytical comparability and, in some cases, pharmacokinetic comparability studies needed to bridge the clinical material to the commercial material could delay submission of applications for life-saving medicines. While there is the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) Topic Q5E guidance on assessing comparability of biological products before and after manufacturing changes, specific guidance on the emerging issue of conducting comparability exercises in the face of expedited drug development is lacking. In July 2019, clinical pharmacologists and product quality chemists from the US FDA and industry representatives convened an FDA workshop for a scientific exchange about considerations and challenges around conducting comparability exercises for expedited programs for biological products. This article highlights discussions from the workshop.