韩国生物类似药的研究进展

随着多个"重磅炸弹"级原研生物药的专利逐渐到期,全球生物类似药的研发呈现出蓬勃发展的态势,各个国家及地区的监管机构也逐步明确了技术指南要求,生物类似药的发展也因各国监管方式及监管理念的不同而各具特色。介绍韩国生物类似药的批准上市情况和临床在研状况,对韩国生物类似药的研究进展进行综述。     

Effective pharmaceutical regulation needs alignment with doctors

Concerns emanating from the medical community about the safety and efficacy of biosimilars indicate an increasing distrust of the outcome of the drug regulatory process. To illustrate this, we analysed the creation of the European biosimilar regulatory framework, specifically focussing on the guidelines outlining approval criteria for biosimilar erythropoietins, which have been recently adopted. We observed an absence of the organised medical community in the public process of creating and updating the guidelines. In this article we argue that, to ensure that innovative medicines continue to find their way to the patients who might benefit from them, a closer collaboration between the organised medical community and regulators is needed.     

Biosimilar: what it is not

A biosimilar is a high quality biological medicine shown to be in essence the same as an original product. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) paved the way in the regulatory arena by creating a safeguarding framework for the development of biosimilars. Biosimilar is thus a regulatory term that alludes to the evidence-based studies required to demonstrate such very high similarity. They are therefore not innovative products but the pathway laid down by the EMA for their approval represented a new paradigm. This has brought some confusion and has cast doubts among healthcare professionals about the scientific evidence behind their authorization. Many papers have been published to clarify the concept, and to reassure those professionals, but misconceptions frequently still arise. Unfortunately, this prevents biosimilars from deploying their full therapeutic added value. This paper is intended to approach those misconceptions from a new angle, by explaining what a biosimilar is not…and why. A biosimilar is neither a generic, nor an original product. It is not a biobetter or a ‘stand-alone’. Therefore, it should not be managed as such therapeutically, commercially or from a healthcare policy viewpoint. The EMA''s criteria were acknowledged by other agencies, but a significant regulatory gap with a vast majority of regulatory bodies still remains. This leaves room for the so-called non-original biologics (NOB), i.e. non-biosimilar biologics, to be launched in many regions. Raising awareness of what a biosimilar is and what it is not, will generate trust in biosimilars among healthcare professionals and will ultimately benefit patients     

Biosimilars lining up to compete with Herceptin – opportunity knocks

Trastuzumab is a monoclonal antibody developed by Genentech as a treatment for breast cancer and gastric cancer when the cancer cells overexpress HER2, a membrane-bound receptor activated by epidermal growth factor. Now marketed by Roche under the trade name Herceptin, trastuzumab has been readily adopted as treatment for some of the most invasive types of breast cancer. The cost for Herceptin is over $50,000 for a full course of treatment. With the development of regulatory pathways for biosimilar products, and the imminent expiry of patents covering Herceptin, several companies have developed biosimilar trastuzumab products. As biosimilar manufacturers look for opportunities to market biosimilar trastuzumab products, Roche has positioned itself to protect its market by developing additional anti-HER2 products complementary to Herceptin. The advent of competition from biosimilars should bring some opportunity for cost savings for patients, as well as incentive for continued advancement in development of better treatments to fight breast cancer.     

Sample Size for Multiple Hypothesis Testing in Biosimilar Development

In biosimilar development, often multiple endpoints within a study, multiple doses and routes of administration or multiple studies in different populations are considered. However, a regulatory requirement is that equivalence of the biosimilar and the reference drug has to be shown for all comparisons, which would typically require a large sample size for a clinical development program. One way that the sample size can be reduced, when m null hypotheses are to be considered, is to require that only k < m null hypotheses have to be rejected to get approval. In fact, this is a realistic requirement, since despite their guidelines the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has already approved applications for biosimilars where not all primary endpoints met the equivalence criteria. In this article, we investigate the properties of the test for the success of at least k out of m endpoints and discuss several multiplicity adjustments that might be useful in practice. We illustrate the impact of multiple hypotheses testing on the sample size using three real-world examples of pharmacokinetic studies that were submitted to the EMA for the approval of biosimilars. Supplementary materials for this article are available online.     

Non-clinical safety studies on biosimilar recombinant human erythropoietin

Recombinant human erythropoietin (rhEPO) is widely used for the treatment of patients with anaemia and its loss of patent protection has stimulated the development of cheaper biosimilar products. However, the quality and comparability of rhEPO products recently marketed in several developing countries is questionable. Paying attention to quality in its isolation, purification and analytical characterization, it has been possible to produce a biosimilar rhEPO that is comparable with the originator product. Non-clinical safety testing was initially carried out in the absence of a regulatory framework and contributed to the receipt of marketing approval for biosimilar rhEPO in Eastern Europe. Subsequently, this non-clinical testing was extended to take into account the recent guidelines for similar biological medicinal products published by the European regulatory authorities, which were markedly influenced by the intervening occurrence of pure red cell aplasia in patients taking what proved to be an impure rhEPO product. This Mini Review discusses the challenges faced, approaches taken and lessons learned in developing a biosimilar rhEPO product, both before and after the publication of the regulatory guidelines.     

On safety margin for drug interchangeability

ABSTRACT

As more and more generic (or biosimilar) drug products become available in the market place, it is a concern whether the approved generic (or biosimilar) drug products are safe and efficacious and hence can be used interchangeably. According to current regulation, most regulatory agencies such as the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) indicate an approved generic (or biosimilar) drug product can serve as a substitute for the innovative drug product. Bioequivalence (biosimilarity) assessment for regulatory approval among generic copies (or biosimilars) of the innovative drug product are not required. In practice, approved generic (or biosimilar) drugs are commonly used interchangeably without any mechanism of safety monitoring. In this article, current bioequivalence (or biosimilarity) limit is adjusted according to the observed geometric mean ratio and corresponding variability for development of safety margins for monitoring of drug interchangeability by minimizing the relative change in response with and without the switching.     

生物制剂和生物仿制药的特殊性及其风险管理

近年来,生物制剂发展迅速,临床广泛用于类风湿性关节炎、强直性脊柱炎、炎性肠病、银屑病关节炎和系统性红斑狼疮等炎症疾病的治疗.作为一类新型药物,生物制剂具有某些特殊的风险(如免疫原性),并可引发一些严重感染、结核和机会性感染.最近几年,欧洲药品管理局(EMA)、世界卫生组织(WHO)和美国食品药品监督管理局(FDA)均颁布了有关生物制剂及生物仿制药临床试验和上市的相应法规与审批程序.本文分析了生物制剂和生物仿制药面临的用药风险及其特殊性.我国应借鉴欧美国家的经验,进一步规范生物制剂和生物仿制药的审批和评价体系,加强该类药物的用药风险监管.     

Biosimilarity assessment of biosimilar therapeutic monoclonal antibodies

The concept of biosimilar was established in the early 2000s in EU. Currently, the regulatory framework for biosimilar has also been established in the US, Japan, and other countries. As of 2018, biosimilars for infliximab, adalimumab, rituximab, trastuzumab, and bevacizumab have been approved. During the development of a biosimilar, product quality should be evaluated and compared with those of the reference product extensively. Among the quality attributes of therapeutic antibodies, FcRn binding and related structures are well known to affect the pharmacokinetic profile of the product. Other quality attributes such as antigen binding, glycan structure, and isoelectric point are considered to have a potential impact on the pharmacokinetic profile of the product. Based on the high similarity of the quality attributes of the biosimilar to those of its reference product, comparative non-clinical and clinical studies are conducted. Comparable pharmacokinetic profile of the biosimilar and the reference product is important for biosimilar evaluation. In this review, the basic concept of biosimilar development as well as pharmacokinetic data obtained via non-clinical and clinical studies of biosimilar therapeutic antibody is introduced, and future perspective is discussed.     

抗体类生物类似药命名管理及其影响分析

目的 规范我国抗体类生物类似药命名,完善其全生命周期管理体系。方法 深入研究世界卫生组织（World Health Organization,WHO）、欧盟、美国、日本及我国关于抗体类生物类似药的命名要求,分析不同命名方式对药品全生命周期管理的影响。结果 目前,国内外抗体类生物类似药的命名原则不尽相同,但总体遵循WHO的国际非专利药名系统不同的命名方式将对处方安全性、药物警戒、医保准入与支付等方面产生影响。结论 建议药品监管部门逐步与国际接轨,基于国际非专利药名系统并结合我国实际情况尽快出台生物类似药命名相关文件,以明确抗体类生物类似药命名。此外,建议加强药物警戒管理、制定科学审慎的生物类似药医保支付决策,从而构建生物类似药尤其是抗体类药物的全生命周期管理体系。     

Comparability and biosimilarity: considerations for the healthcare provider

BACKGROUND: Healthcare providers use recombinant biologics such as monoclonal antibodies to treat a variety of serious illnesses. Manufacturing of approved biotechnology products is complex, and the quality of the resulting biologic is dependent on careful control of process inputs and operating conditions. Biosimilars, which are similar but not identical to innovator biologics, are entering regulatory evaluation, approval, and marketing in regions with biosimilar approval pathways. SCOPE AND FINDINGS: This article describes the evaluation and potential impact of manufacturing process changes and biosimilar product development, and explores the similarities and distinctions between the two. Regulatory agencies generally require a comparability exercise following a manufacturing process change. This comparability is focused primarily on analytical characterization of the approved product before and after the manufacturing process change, with non-clinical and clinical confirmation required when determined necessary. When developing a biosimilar, the manufacturer does not have access to key information including the innovator manufacturer's cell line, cell culture conditions, purification procedures, and fill and finish processes. Further, the biosimilar manufacturer does not have access to information about the innovator manufacturer's product development history, including knowledge about the quality attributes of lots used in non-clinical and clinical development. We define the biosimilar manufacturer's lack of information as the knowledge gap. As a result, a biosimilarity exercise to compare a biosimilar to an approved innovator biologic requires a rigorous evaluation to ensure the safety and efficacy of the biosimilar. CONCLUSION: Given the knowledge gap under which biosimilars are developed, data to establish biosimilarity should go beyond a simple comparability exercise.     

The use of 95% CI or 90% CI for drug product development — a controversial issue?

ABSTRACT

For review and approval of drug products, a 95% confidence interval approach for evaluation of new drugs is commonly used, while a 90% confidence interval approach is considered for assessment of generic drugs and biosimilar products. In the past decade, FDA has been challenged for adopting different standards (i.e., 5% type-I error rate for new drugs and 10% type-I error rate for generics/biosimilars) for regulatory submissions of drugs and biologics. This note intends to clarify the confusion by pointing out the fundamental differences between (i) the concepts of point hypotheses and interval hypotheses, and (ii) the concepts of interval hypotheses testing and confidence interval approach. In general, the method of interval hypotheses testing is not equivalent to the confidence interval approach although they may be operationally equivalent under certain conditions.     

生物类似药在我国的用药管理挑战及对策探讨

目的：了解生物类似药的最新研究现状,并对生物类似药用药管理中可能面临的挑战进行对策探讨。方法：查阅文献和相关政策,回顾欧美发达国家的生物类似药的管理制度,分析国内国外生物类似药的发展现状。结果：生物类似药上市的种类和数量逐渐增加,为患者提供了更多的选择。同时,许多国家都已经建立起完整的生物类似药审批制度,并采取了合理的临床管理措施,促进了全球生物类似药的迅速发展。在我国,生物类似药的发展刚刚起步,需要加强临床用药管理。结论：生物类似药的管理需要强化药师角色,从上市后评价,用药教育等多个方面更好的应对生物类似药的用药管理挑战。     

Perception of Biosimilar Biologics and Non-Medical Prescription Switching among Rheumatologists: A Saudi Society for Rheumatology Initiative

BackgroundThe aim of this study was to evaluate rheumatologists’ perceptions of biosimilar biologics and Non-Medical Switching (NMS).MethodsA cross-sectional survey was conducted among registered members of the Saudi Society for Rheumatology. The questionnaire focused on biosimilars and NMS. Logistic regression was performed to ascertain the effect of demographics and practice characteristics on the use of biosimilars and NMS.ResultsOut of 249 SSR members, 143 completed the survey, generating a response rate of 57.4%. Of those (59.44%) were men with a mean (±SD) age and years of practice of 42.3 ± 9.13 and 10.3 ± 8.9, respectively. Rheumatologists managing adult patients (81.82%) and Ministry of Health practice (43.36 %) were the majority of respondents. Previous experience in prescribing a biosimilar was reported by 43 (30.07%) participants, with a higher probability among women (p = 0.015). A total of 26 (18.18%) participants had performed NMS on eligible patients. Adequate knowledge on biosimilars was reported by 69 (48.25%) participants. The adequacy of evidence to grant biosimilar approval for the studied indication and extrapolation to treat other conditions was reported by 88 (61.5%) and 69 (48.3%), respectively. The concept of totality-of-the-evidence was well understood by 37.1%. Biosimilars had been previously used by 43 (30.07) participants in their practice. NMS had been attempted by 26 (18.18), while 86 (60.1%) participants believed that NMS might harm patients.ConclusionThere is a clear knowledge gap about the biosimilar approval process among adult and pediatric rheumatologists who took part in the survey. In addition, a large number of participants reported having negative opinions about NMS. There is a need to organize SSR-led educational activities, and develop national guidelines regarding biosimilars and NMS.     

Improving the understanding of originator and biosimilar biologics among healthcare providers in Saudi Arabia

The loss of patentability of many originator biologics has led to the rapid introduction of biosimilar agents. The anticipated economic benefit of introducing such agent has been accompanied by vagueness surrounding their biotechnology, approval requirements, positioning in treatment paradigms and potential for adverse events. The Second Symposium on Biologics and Biosimilars “Beyond Clinical Practice” was held on 24th-26th January 2020 aiming at improving the understanding of these new agents in a diverse interactive conference and to guide stakeholders how to introduce biosimilars into clinical practice. The symposium consisted of 4 tracks and 3 workshops. A total of 217 participants attended the meeting. The majority were pharmacists (78.8%) followed by physicians (18.9%) and other healthcare providers (2.3%). The workshops covered the following topics: basics of pharmacoeconomics, pharmacovigilance and patients’ perspective toward biosimilar biologics. While, the 4 main tracks included: Introduction to biosimilars, challenges in clinical practice, regulatory and pharmacoeconomic aspects and Challenges in biosimilar pharmacovigilance.     

A review of biosimilars for rheumatoid arthritis

Biologics are effective, though costly, medications for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Biosimilars are medications that have no clinically meaningful differences when compared with their corresponding reference biologics but cost significantly less. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the European Medication Agency have approved biosimilars for adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, and rituximab for the treatment of RA. Streamlined approval processes are expected to expedite biosimilar development while maintaining strict safety and efficacy standards. Encouragingly, many analyses have demonstrated the potential for massive healthcare savings if biosimilars are used over biologics. Challenges to biosimilar uptake, including patient and provider hesitancy, can likely be overcome with the education of all stakeholders within healthcare systems.     

Improving the power to establish clinical similarity in a Phase 3 efficacy trial by incorporating prior evidence of analytical and pharmacokinetic similarity

ABSTRACT

To improve patients’ access to safe and effective biological medicines, abbreviated licensure pathways for biosimilar and interchangeable biological products have been established in the US, Europe, and other countries around the world. The US Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency have published various guidance documents on the development and approval of biosimilars, which recommend a “totality-of-the-evidence” approach with a stepwise process to demonstrate biosimilarity. The approach relies on comprehensive comparability studies ranging from analytical and nonclinical studies to clinical pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) and efficacy studies. A clinical efficacy study may be necessary to address residual uncertainty about the biosimilarity of the proposed product to the reference product and support a demonstration that there are no clinically meaningful differences. In this article, we propose a statistical strategy that takes into account the similarity evidence from analytical assessments and PK studies in the design and analysis of the clinical efficacy study in order to address residual uncertainty and enhance statistical power and precision. We assume that if the proposed biosimilar product and the reference product are shown to be highly similar with respect to the analytical and PK parameters, then they should also be similar with respect to the efficacy parameters. We show that the proposed methods provide correct control of the type I error and improve the power and precision of the efficacy study upon the standard analysis that disregards the prior evidence. We confirm and illustrate the theoretical results through simulation studies based on the biosimilars development experience of many different products.     

The regulatory framework of biosimilars in the European Union

In the European Union (EU), the regulatory policy for biosimilars has enabled different biosimilar products to be marketed through an abridged application, which allows the applicant to submit a reduced dossier. Nevertheless, some manufacturers of biological products that share some characteristics with copies have opted for a full application; therefore, the number and extent of clinical studies required in these cases is increased. Here, we focus on a comparison of recombinant human erythropoietin medicinal products. We analyse and discuss clinical studies submitted to the European Medicines Agency that relate to available biosimilars and biological medicinal products that are authorised with a full dossier. We also discuss the issues of interchangeability and substitution, given that the EU allows each Member State to set their own substitution policies.