Regulatory evaluation of biosimilars throughout their product life-cycle

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.

Biosimilars approvals by thirteen regulatory authorities: A cross-national comparison

Biosimilars are biological medicines highly similar to a previously licensed reference product and their licensing is expected to improve access to biological therapies. This study aims to present an overview of biosimilars approval by thirteen regulatory authorities (RA). The study is a cross-national comparison of regulatory decisions involving biosimilars in Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Chile, Canada, Colombia, Europe, Hungary, Guatemala, Italy, Mexico, Peru and United States. We examined publicly available documents containing information regarding the approval of biosimilars and investigated the publication of public assessment reports for registration applications, guidelines for biosimilars licensing, and products approved. Data extraction was conducted by a network of researchers and regulatory experts. All the RA had issued guidance documents establishing the requirements for the licensing of biosimilars. However, only three RA had published public assessment reports for registration applications. In total, the investigated jurisdictions had from 19 to 78 biosimilars approved, most of them licensed from 2018 to 2020. In spite of the advance in the number of products in recent years, some challenges still persist. Limited access to information regarding the assessment of biosimilars by RA can affect confidence, which may ultimately impact adoption of these products in practice.

An Institutional Guide for Formulary Decisions of Biosimilars

Biologics have changed the landscape for the management of many debilitating chronic diseases but account for a significant expenditure of medications globally. Fortunately, advances in technology paved the way for the introduction of biosimilars, which are highly similar to the originator biologics. In the quest to reduce the budget impact of biologics, organizations have begun to adopt biosimilars. Institutions evaluating biosimilars for inclusion in the hospital formulary must make informed formulary decisions by conducting a thorough review of key elements for evaluation of biosimilars and address the multidimensional aspects during the selection process of different biosimilar products. Therefore, we aim to present an institutional guide of these elements to inform formulary decisions. These key elements include biosimilar evaluation for formulary addition; regulatory approval; substitution, interchangeability, and switching; extrapolation; product characteristics, manufacturing, and supply chain issues; pharmacoeconomic evaluations; traceability, nomenclature, and coding; education; and pharmacovigilance.

Indian Biosimilars and Vaccines at Crossroads-Replicating the Success of Pharmagenerics

BACKGROUND

The global pharma sector is fast shifting from generics to biologics and biosimilars with the first approval in Europe in 2006 followed by US approval in 2015. In the form of Hepatitis B vaccine, India saw its first recombinant biologics approval in 2000. Around 20% of generic medications and 62% of vaccines are now supplied by the Indian pharmaceutical industry. It is this good position in biologics and biosimilars production that could potentially improve healthcare via decreased treatment cost. India has witnessed large investments in biosimilars over the years. Numerous India-bred new players, e.g., Enzene Biosciences Ltd., are keen on biosimilars and have joined the race alongside the emerging giants, e.g., Biocon and Dr. Reddy's. A very positive sign was the remarkable disposition during the COVID-19 pandemic by Bharat Biotech and the Serum Institute of India. India's biopharmaceutical industry has been instrumental in producing and supplying preventives and therapeutics to fight COVID-19. Despite a weak supply chain and workforce pressure, the production was augmented to provide reasonably priced high-quality medications to more than 133 nations. Biosimilars could cost-effectively treat chronic diseases involving expensive conventional therapies, including diabetes, respiratory ailments, cancer, and connective tissue diseases. Biologics and biosimilars have been and are being tested to treat and manage COVID-19 symptoms characterized by inflammation and respiratory distress.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Although India boasts many universities, research centers, and a relatively skilled workforce, its global University-Industry collaboration ranking is 24, IPR ranking remains 47 and innovation ranking 39. This reveals a wide industry-academia gap to bridge. There are gaps in effective translational research in India that must be promptly and appropriately addressed. Innovation demands strong and effective collaborations among universities, techno-incubators, and industries.

METHODOLOGY

Many successful research findings in academia do not get translation opportunities supposedly due to low industrial collaboration, low IP knowledge, and publication pressure with stringent timelines. In light of this, a detailed review of literature, including policy papers, government initiatives, and corporate reviews, was carried out, and the compilation and synthesis of the secondary data were meticulously summarized for the easy comprehension of the facts and roadmap ahead. For easy comprehension, charts, figures, and compiled tables are presented.

RESULTS

This review assesses India's situation in the biosimilar space, the gaps and areas to improve for Indian investment strategies, development, and innovation, addressing need for a more skilled workforce, industrial collaboration, and business models.

CONCLUSIONS

This review also proposes forward an approach to empowering technopreneurs to develop MSMEs for large-scale operations to support India in taking innovative thoughts to the global level to ultimately realize a self-reliant India. The limitations of the compilation are also highlighted towards the end.

"Biosimilar, so it looks alike, but what does it mean?" A qualitative study of Danish patients' perceptions of biosimilars

Biosimilars are highly similar follow‐on products for biologics that can foster biologics competition. Questionnaire studies have attempted to gauge the patient perspective on biosimilars, but none have delved deeper into how patients view biologics and switching of these. Considering Denmark has one of the highest biosimilar uptakes worldwide, the aim of this study was to investigate how Danish patients with psoriasis, arthritic diseases or inflammatory bowel disease perceive biosimilars. Twelve participants were semi‐structurally interviewed in either a focus group or an internet‐based, individual interview between May 2019 and July 2019. Content analysis was inductively applied. Participants on originators voiced more reluctance towards using biosimilars than those already using them. Both participants using originator and biosimilar products expressed concerns about reoccurrence of disease symptoms due to differences in effectiveness and safety. Participants generally struggled with understanding biosimilarity, and they voiced a need to be well‐informed about switching. They were all aware of and accepted how healthcare budget restrictions played a role in the push to use biosimilars. To improve biosimilar uptake and willingness to switch to a biosimilar, patient‐centred information on efficacy and safety and explanation of the societal benefits of the savings from using biosimilars must be carefully communicated.

Technological Advancements in Monoclonal Antibodies

Biopharmaceuticals are innovative solutions that have revolutionized the treatment of important chronic diseases and malignancies. The approval of biosimilar products has become a complex and balanced process, and there are versions of drugs with established biosimilarity that can offer a more accessible treatment option to patients. The objective of this work was to identify the advancement of these technologies by means of patent and article analysis based on technological and scientific prospection. In patent document recovery, Derwent Innovation Index (DWPI) and PatentInspiration databases were used. The research was based on the search of the selected terms in the title, summary, and claims of the documents through a search strategy containing IPC code and keywords. In articles recovery, the Web of Science tool was used in the search of scientific publications dated from the last 5 years. The search resulted in a total of 2295 individual patent documents and 467 families using DWPI database, 769 individual patents and 205 families using PatentInspiration, and 2602 articles using Web of Science database. Additionally, this work describes the number of organizations that contribute to this area, where they are, how much development they have undergone, and the inventors/authors involved. Based on the number of publications registered, there is an important prominence for scientific research in mAbs. In terms of innovation, it is expected that several therapeutic drugs are already under regulatory review, which will allow drugs to be approved over the next few years and will thus generate a continuous flow of new products based on immunotherapies, mAbs, and biosimilar drugs. These drugs have become essential weapons for the treatment of significant diseases, and the increasing trend in the number of related scientific and technological publications contributes to making these therapies available to the greatest number of people.

Regulatory challenges with biosimilars: an update from 20 countries

The World Health Organization (WHO) issued guidelines for the regulatory evaluation of biosimilars in 2009 and has provided considerable effort toward helping member states implement the evaluation principles in the guidelines into their regulatory practices. Despite this effort, a recent WHO survey (conducted in 2019–2020) has revealed four main remaining challenges: unavailable/insufficient reference products in the country; lack of resources; problems with the quality of some biosimilars (and even more with noninnovator products); and difficulties with the practice of interchangeability and naming of biosimilars. The following have been identified as opportunities/solutions for regulatory authorities to deal with the existing challenges: (1) exchange of information on products with other regulatory authorities and accepting foreign licensed and sourced reference products, hence avoiding conducting unnecessary (duplicate) bridging studies; (2) use of a “reliance” concept and/or joint review for the assessment and approval of biosimilars; (3) review and reassessment of the products already approved before the establishment of a regulatory framework for biosimilar approval; and (4) setting appropriate regulatory oversight for good pharmacovigilance, which is essential for the identification of problems with products and establishing the safety and efficacy of interchangeability of biosimilars.

Commentary - A comprehensive safety understanding of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor biosimilars and Intended Copy Biologics in treating chemotherapy associated febrile neutropenia

Filgrastim, human white cell growth factor, Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), is a core medicine in the WHO list of Essential Medicines. For this reason, recent reporting of statistically significant safety and efficacy differences between reference and Biosimilar brands of filgrastim by Rastogi and the Indian Pharmacopoeia Commission in Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology in 2020 is of great concern [Shruti Rastogi et al. Towards a comprehensive safety understanding of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor biosimilars in treating chemotherapy associated febrile neutropenia: Trends from decades of data. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology Volume 395, 15 May 2020, 114,976. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.taap.2020.114976]. This commentary shows that the alarming report is a result of incorrect statistical tests misapplied to inappropriate data sets compounded by a further problem relating to the strict regulatory definition of a Biosimilar Medicine as opposed that of an Intended Copy Biologic. In contrast, the body of evidence from more than seven and a half thousand participants in Confirmatory Clinical Studies and Post Approval Clinical Studies as well as the Periodic Safety Update Reports confirms that European approved filgrastim Biosimilars show no meaningful difference in quality, safety or efficacy compared to the reference brand.

Recommendations for Enhancing Quality and Capability of Indian Biopharmaceutical Industry: Summary of a Workshop

The biopharmaceutical industry is undergoing an evolutionary phase with the rise of advanced manufacturing technologies. The regulatory and customer requirements are shifting towards the development of personalized or targeted medicines. With this changing landscape, industry must evaluate the relevance of quality management systems. Over the past two decades, Indian companies have played a significant role in generating access and reducing costs of medicines. The quality management systems that enable the development and manufacturing of biopharmaceuticals require companies to adapt to regulatory requirements of process development, clinical trials, production, and life cycle management. To better understand the status and potential opportunities to enhance the quality management systems of manufacturing biopharmaceuticals, a workshop was organized by United States Pharmacopeia (USP) and Association of Biotechnology Led Enterprises (ABLE). This paper summarizes the recommendations by the panel and participants of the workshop to industry stakeholders, governance bodies, and policymakers. Following points were proposed to strengthen the culture of quality processes in Indian biopharmaceutical industry: i) Inculcating a culture of quality; ii) Effective training programs on quality processes; iii) Focus on quality beyond compliance; iv) Focus on automation and digitization. v) Enhance processes for pharmacovigilance and product life cycle management. vi) Understanding global regulatory processes.

Clinical and Regulatory Concerns of Biosimilars: A Review of Literature

Although biosimilars have been part of clinical practice for more than a decade, healthcare professionals (HCPs) do not fully accept them. This is because of the perception that biosimilars may not be like their originators in terms of quality, safety, and efficacy. This study aims to evaluate the current knowledge and attitudes of healthcare professionals toward biosimilar prescription, and to elaborate on their concerns. We reviewed the literature using PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Science Direct electronic databases in the period from 2018 to 2020. The knowledge and confidence of healthcare professionals vary between countries, between clinical profiles and between studies. Although most of the healthcare professionals had a positive attitude to prescribing biosimilars, they would still prefer to prescribe them in initial treatment. Generally, HCPs were against multiple switches and substitution of biosimilars at the pharmacy level. HCP's key concern was interchangeability, with eventual consequences on the clinical outcome of patients. HCPs still approach biosimilars with caution and stigma. HCPs need to have an unbiased coherent understanding of biosimilars at clinical, molecular and regulatory levels. It was also observed that most of their concerns are more theoretical than science-based. Physicians are in an excellent position to accept biosimilars, but they need the additional support of regulatory authorities to approve and take into consideration the available scientific data regarding biosimilars.

The regulatory landscape of biosimilars: WHO efforts and progress made from 2009 to 2019

The World Health Assembly in 2014 adopted a resolution that mandates both Member States and the WHO Secretariat to facilitate access to biotherapeutic products in a way that ensures their quality, safety and efficacy. The availability of biosimilars is expected to increase access to biotherapeutic products by providing more treatment options triggering competition which would lead to a consistent reduction in the average price of treatment. Since the WHO guidelines for regulatory evaluation of biosimilars were issued in 2009, WHO has provided immense effort towards harmonizing the terminology and the regulatory framework for biosimilars globally. This article describes the progress made and the regulatory landscape changes for biosimilars in 21 countries during the past ten years. Based on the information from regulators and from publicly available data, the following has been identified: 1) WHO guidelines have contributed to setting the regulatory framework for biosimilars in countries and increasing regulatory convergence at global level; 2) terminology used for biosimilars is more consistent than in the past; 3) biosimilars are now approved in all participating countries; and 4) the dominant product class for candidate biosimilars under development is monoclonal antibodies.

WHO implementation workshop on guidelines on procedures and data requirements for changes to approved biotherapeutic products, Seoul, Republic of Korea, 25-26 June 2019

The first global workshop on implementation of the WHO guidelines on procedures and data requirements for changes to approved biotherapeutic products adopted by the WHO Expert Committee in 2018 was held in June 2019. The workshop participants recognized that the principles based on sound science and the potential for risk, as described in the WHO Guidelines on post-approval changes, which constitute the global standard for product life-cycle management are providing clarity and helping national regulatory authorities in establishing guidance while improving time-lines for an efficient regulation of products. Consequently, the regulatory situation for post-approval changes and guideline implementation is changing but there is a disparity between different countries. While the guidelines are gradually being implemented in some countries and also being considered in other countries, the need for regional workshops and further training on post-approval changes was a common theme reiterated by many participants. Given the complexities relating to post-approval changes in different regions/countries, there was a clear understanding among all participants that an efficient approach for product life-cycle management at a national level is needed to ensure faster availability of high standard, safe and efficacious medicines to patients as per the World Health Assembly Resolution 67.21.

The Breakthrough of Biosimilars: A Twist in the Narrative of Biological Therapy

The coming wave of patent expiries of first generation commercialized biotherapeutical drugs has seen the global market open its doors to close copies of these products. These near perfect substitutes, which are termed as “biosimilars”, do not need to undergo intense clinical trials for their approval. However, they are mandated to produce identical similarity from their reference biologics in terms of clinical safety and efficacy. As such, these biosimilar products promise to foster unprecedented access to a wide range of life-saving biologics. However, seeing this promise be fulfilled requires the development of biosimilars to be augmented with product trust, predictable regulatory frameworks, and sustainable policies. It is vital for healthcare and marketing professionals to understand the critical challenges surrounding biosimilar use and implement informed clinical and commercial decisions. A proper framework of pharmacovigilance, education, and scientific exchange for biologics and biosimilars would ensure a dramatic rise in healthcare access and market sustainability. This paper seeks to collate and review all relevant published intelligence of the health and business potential of biosimilars. In doing so, it provides a visualization of the essential steps that are required to be taken for global biosimilar acceptance.

Current perspectives on biosimilars

In this work, an overview of the biosimilars market, pipeline and industry targets is discussed. Biosimilars typically have a shorter timeline for approval (8 years) compared to 12 years for innovator drugs and the development cost can be 10–20% of the innovator drug. The biosimilar pipeline is reviewed as well as the quality management system (QMS) that is needed to generate traceable, trackable data sets. One difference between developing a biosimilar compared to an originator is that a broader analytical foundation is required for biosimilars and advances made in developing analytical similarity to characterize these products are discussed. An example is presented on the decisions and considerations explored in the development of a biosimilar and includes identification of the best process parameters and methods based on cost, time, and titer. Finally factors to consider in the manufacture of a biosimilar and approaches used to achieve the target-directed development of a biosimilar are discussed.

Comparative immunogenicity assessment of biosimilars

The first anticancer biosimilars have entered clinical use, with many others under clinical development. Like all biologics, biosimilars may elicit unwanted immune responses that can significantly impact clinical efficacy and safety. Head-to-head immunogenicity assessment of biosimilars and their reference biologics should, therefore, be a critical component of a biosimilar's clinical development program. Various bioanalytical platforms may be used to detect and characterize immune responses, each having relative strengths and weaknesses. To fully recognize the clinical relevance of such data, regulators must be able to interpret immunogenicity results in an assay-specific context as well as in perspective of clinical pharmacology, efficacy and safety. Herein, we discuss current challenges imposed by global regulatory requirements for immunogenicity assessment of biosimilars.