国产与原研复方缬沙坦氨氯地平片质量对比研究

目的 通过测定国产与原研复方缬沙坦氨氯地平片的硬度、崩解时限、溶出度以及体外溶出曲线,评估国产与原研制剂的质量。方法 2020年10月至2022年2月,分别测定国产与原研复方缬沙坦氨氯地平片的硬度、崩解时限、溶出度,并采用f2相似因子法比较了两种制剂分别在pH 1.2盐酸溶液、pH 4.5醋酸盐缓冲液和pH 6.8磷酸盐缓冲液中的溶出相似性。结果国产与原研复方缬沙坦氨氯地平片的硬度略有差异,崩解时限基本一致,在pH 6.8磷酸盐缓冲液30 min内缬沙坦和氨氯地平的溶出度均达到80%以上;两种制剂在三种溶出介质中的溶出曲线的f2相似因子值均大于80,体外溶出相似性较高。结论国产与原研复方缬沙坦氨氯地平片在三种溶出介质中的溶出相似性较好,可为复方缬沙坦氨氯地平片的质量一致性评价提供参考。     

阿达木单抗类似药SMMU-16皮下注射对食蟹猴的重复给药毒性研究

目的：探讨阿达木单抗类似药SMMU-16重复皮下注射对食蟹猴的安全性。方法30只健康食蟹猴按体重随机分为溶媒对照组,阳性对照组,SMMU-16低、中、高剂量组,其中SMMU-16低、中、高剂量组分别给予SMMU-1610、33、200 mg/kg,每组6只,雌雄各半。阳性对照组给予33.0 mg/kg 阿达木单抗,溶媒对照组给予SM-MU-16空白溶液。给药体积均为4.0 ml/kg（分4个点注射）。每周1次皮下注射给药,共给药4周,恢复期4周,期间进行各项毒理学指标检测。结果与自身给药前（d0）相比,给药期间中剂量组、高剂量组及阳性对照组的红细胞计数、Hb定量、红细胞压积（HCT）降低（P均＜0.05）,中、高剂量组网织红细胞比例升高（P＜0.05）。骨髓检查发现SM-MU-16中、高剂量组及阳性对照组食蟹猴骨髓红细胞系轻度增生。组织病理学检查发现d28时阳性对照组和高剂量组各3只、中剂量组2只动物出现胸腺萎缩和脾脏萎缩。上述变化在恢复期结束时可逐渐恢复。各组动物肝脏和肾脏未见明显病理改变。其余指标包括一般症状、呼吸、体温、瞳孔、尿液、心电图、免疫和生化指标等未见明显与供试品相关的异常变化和量效、时效关系。结论 SMMU-16主要毒性靶器官为免疫系统（胸腺和脾脏）和血液系统,毒性作用具有一定的可逆性。此毒性作用考虑与SMMU-16免疫抑制药理作用的延伸和放大有关。SMMU-16皮下注射对食蟹猴的无毒性剂量为10 mg/kg。 SMMU-16与等剂量阳性对照药在本实验条件下出现的毒性反应基本类似。     

Evaluation of a biosimilar recombinant alpha epoetin in the management of anemia in hemodialysis patients

Background: The efficacy of human recombinant erythropoietins (rHuEPOs) in the treatment of anemia with different etiologies is proven. Development of biosimilar rHuEPO products with lower cost and wider availability is important for the care of anemic patients. Objective: The aim of the present study was to determine the bioequivalence and safety of a biosimilar rHuEPO (Pastopoitin^®) and compare it with the innovator product Eprex^®, as a standard rHuEPO. Methods: One hundred and seven anemic patients on stable hemodialysis were recruited to this randomized double-blind comparative trial and assigned to either subcutaneous Pastopoitin (n = 50) or Eprex (n = 57). Each study group received rHuEPO at a dose of 80–120 IU/kg/week in 2–3 divided doses for a period of 3 months. Hematologic parameters including Hemoglobin, hematocrit, RBC, EBC, platelet, MCV, MCH and MCHC were checked every 2 weeks. Blood iron, ferritin, TIBC, creatinine, BUN and electrolytes (Na, K, Ca and P) were evaluated monthly over the 3 months. Results: A significant increase in hemoglobin, hematocrit and RBC was observed by the end of study in both Pastopoitin and Eprex groups (p < 0.001). However, these factors were not significantly different between the groups, neither at baseline nor at the end of study (p > 0.05). Likewise, the groups were comparable regarding MCV, MCH, MCHC, iron, ferritin, TIBC, creatinine, BUN and electrolytes at baseline as well as at the end of trial. Adverse events were not serious and occurred with the same frequency in the study groups. Conclusion: Pastopoitin showed comparable efficacy and safety profile with Eprex in anemic patients on hemodialysis. Hence, Pastopoitin may be considered as a rHuEPO with a lower cost and wider availability compared with the innovator product Eprex.     

Biosimilar DMARD in rheumatology: A general perspective with focus on India

Biologic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARD) have revolutionized the management of several rheumatic disorders, especially those with autoimmune inflammatory etiology. A decade of experience has further endorsed their efficacy and unraveled safety issues. Treat to target remission is the current mantra. Infections remain the single most important complication. However, the access to biologics has been severely restricted by their exorbitant cost. Several biologics will lose their patent in the imminent future. An exact replica of a protein molecule is difficult if not impossible. Molecules seemingly similar to biologics called biosimilars or ‘follow on biologics’ are likely to flood the markets world wide at a challenging and affordable price. However, the acceptability of biosimilars will be driven by several contentious issues connected with manufacture, standardization, extent of validation (compared to source innovator biologic), interchangeability (with biologic), regulatory issues, and other patient centric socioeconomic issues. India is likely to provide a fertile field for biosimilar drugs and patients stand to gain from an expanded access and newer treatment paradigms. The fierce competition between several pharmaceutical companies (Indian and multinationals) to gain supremacy will fuel better affordability, equity and access to medicine while upholding the science of quality drugs. The stage is now set for this next big revolution in therapeutics.     

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.     

The biosimilar pathway in the USA: An analysis of the innovator company and biosimilar company perspectives and beyond

In order to improve access to costly biological treatments, a biosimilar pathway in the United States of America (USA) was enacted under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCI Act) of 2009. The aim of the present study was to investigate how the health policy, the establishment of the biosimilar pathway, influenced related companies by studying their respective perspectives and strategies revealed in literatures and publicly available resources. Perspectives of companies reveal the points of concern for the biosimilar pathway, such as data requirements, patents, interchangeability, naming, and exclusivity. Innovator companies may utilize expedited programs for serious conditions, enhance patent protection, launch programs for life-cycle extension, and develop biosimilars as well. The biosimilar companies overcoming technical barriers might need to gather convincing evidence to facilitate market penetration as well as to distinguish their products from those of other biosimilar competitors. More challenges are expected for innovator companies if international harmonization takes place, which might be worth further investigation.     

Extrapolation: Experience gained from original biologics

Biologicals undergo modifications throughout their commercial lifecycle. Major changes can unintentionally magnify their inherent physicochemical variability. Although trials comparing the pre- and the post-change versions have been requested occasionally, analytical comparison is the most sensitive approach to anticipating clinical equivalence. Therefore, it may be concluded, by means of ‘extrapolation’, that non-identical versions of a given biologic will behave equally in all indications. Despite the lessons learned with original biologics, there are still controversies around the approval of biosimilars through extrapolation. Here, a comprehensive analysis of scattered information allows for an account of cases of original biologic versions approved in some indications with no patient trials involved. Healthcare professionals can be reassured that inasmuch as extrapolation has proven valid for new versions of original biologics, the same holds for biosimilars.