Cargando…

The Path Towards a Tailored Clinical Biosimilar Development

Since the first approval of a biosimilar medicinal product in 2006, scientific understanding of the features and development of biosimilar medicines has accumulated. This review scrutinizes public information on development programs and the contribution of the clinical studies for biosimilar approva...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Schiestl, Martin, Ranganna, Gopinath, Watson, Keith, Jung, Byoungin, Roth, Karsten, Capsius, Björn, Trieb, Michael, Bias, Peter, Maréchal-Jamil, Julie
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7211192/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32266678
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40259-020-00422-1
_version_ 1783531404378767360
author Schiestl, Martin
Ranganna, Gopinath
Watson, Keith
Jung, Byoungin
Roth, Karsten
Capsius, Björn
Trieb, Michael
Bias, Peter
Maréchal-Jamil, Julie
author_facet Schiestl, Martin
Ranganna, Gopinath
Watson, Keith
Jung, Byoungin
Roth, Karsten
Capsius, Björn
Trieb, Michael
Bias, Peter
Maréchal-Jamil, Julie
author_sort Schiestl, Martin
collection PubMed
description Since the first approval of a biosimilar medicinal product in 2006, scientific understanding of the features and development of biosimilar medicines has accumulated. This review scrutinizes public information on development programs and the contribution of the clinical studies for biosimilar approval in the European Union (EU) and/or the United States (US) until November 2019. The retrospective evaluation of the programs that eventually obtained marketing authorization and/or licensure revealed that in 95% (36 out of 38) of all programs, the comparative clinical efficacy studies confirmed similarity. In the remaining 5% (2 out of 38), despite meeting efficacy outcomes, the biosimilar candidates exhibited clinical differences in immunogenicity that required changes to the manufacturing process and additional clinical studies to enable biosimilar approval. Both instances of clinical differences in immunogenicity occurred prior to 2010, and the recurrence of these cases is unlikely today due to state-of-the-art assays and improved control of process-related impurities. Biosimilar candidates that were neither approved in the EU nor in the US were not approved due to reasons other than clinical confirmation of efficacy. This review of the development history of biosimilars allows the proposal of a more efficient and expedited biosimilar development without the routine need for comparative clinical efficacy and/or pharmacodynamic studies and without any compromise in quality, safety, or efficacy. This proposal is scientifically valid, consistent with regulation of all biologics, and maintains robust regulatory standards in the assessment of biosimilar candidates. Note: The findings and conclusion of this paper are limited to biosimilar products developed against the regulatory standards in the EU and the US. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s40259-020-00422-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7211192
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-72111922020-05-13 The Path Towards a Tailored Clinical Biosimilar Development Schiestl, Martin Ranganna, Gopinath Watson, Keith Jung, Byoungin Roth, Karsten Capsius, Björn Trieb, Michael Bias, Peter Maréchal-Jamil, Julie BioDrugs Review Article Since the first approval of a biosimilar medicinal product in 2006, scientific understanding of the features and development of biosimilar medicines has accumulated. This review scrutinizes public information on development programs and the contribution of the clinical studies for biosimilar approval in the European Union (EU) and/or the United States (US) until November 2019. The retrospective evaluation of the programs that eventually obtained marketing authorization and/or licensure revealed that in 95% (36 out of 38) of all programs, the comparative clinical efficacy studies confirmed similarity. In the remaining 5% (2 out of 38), despite meeting efficacy outcomes, the biosimilar candidates exhibited clinical differences in immunogenicity that required changes to the manufacturing process and additional clinical studies to enable biosimilar approval. Both instances of clinical differences in immunogenicity occurred prior to 2010, and the recurrence of these cases is unlikely today due to state-of-the-art assays and improved control of process-related impurities. Biosimilar candidates that were neither approved in the EU nor in the US were not approved due to reasons other than clinical confirmation of efficacy. This review of the development history of biosimilars allows the proposal of a more efficient and expedited biosimilar development without the routine need for comparative clinical efficacy and/or pharmacodynamic studies and without any compromise in quality, safety, or efficacy. This proposal is scientifically valid, consistent with regulation of all biologics, and maintains robust regulatory standards in the assessment of biosimilar candidates. Note: The findings and conclusion of this paper are limited to biosimilar products developed against the regulatory standards in the EU and the US. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s40259-020-00422-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer International Publishing 2020-04-07 2020 /pmc/articles/PMC7211192/ /pubmed/32266678 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40259-020-00422-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
spellingShingle Review Article
Schiestl, Martin
Ranganna, Gopinath
Watson, Keith
Jung, Byoungin
Roth, Karsten
Capsius, Björn
Trieb, Michael
Bias, Peter
Maréchal-Jamil, Julie
The Path Towards a Tailored Clinical Biosimilar Development
title The Path Towards a Tailored Clinical Biosimilar Development
title_full The Path Towards a Tailored Clinical Biosimilar Development
title_fullStr The Path Towards a Tailored Clinical Biosimilar Development
title_full_unstemmed The Path Towards a Tailored Clinical Biosimilar Development
title_short The Path Towards a Tailored Clinical Biosimilar Development
title_sort path towards a tailored clinical biosimilar development
topic Review Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7211192/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32266678
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40259-020-00422-1
work_keys_str_mv AT schiestlmartin thepathtowardsatailoredclinicalbiosimilardevelopment
AT rangannagopinath thepathtowardsatailoredclinicalbiosimilardevelopment
AT watsonkeith thepathtowardsatailoredclinicalbiosimilardevelopment
AT jungbyoungin thepathtowardsatailoredclinicalbiosimilardevelopment
AT rothkarsten thepathtowardsatailoredclinicalbiosimilardevelopment
AT capsiusbjorn thepathtowardsatailoredclinicalbiosimilardevelopment
AT triebmichael thepathtowardsatailoredclinicalbiosimilardevelopment
AT biaspeter thepathtowardsatailoredclinicalbiosimilardevelopment
AT marechaljamiljulie thepathtowardsatailoredclinicalbiosimilardevelopment
AT schiestlmartin pathtowardsatailoredclinicalbiosimilardevelopment
AT rangannagopinath pathtowardsatailoredclinicalbiosimilardevelopment
AT watsonkeith pathtowardsatailoredclinicalbiosimilardevelopment
AT jungbyoungin pathtowardsatailoredclinicalbiosimilardevelopment
AT rothkarsten pathtowardsatailoredclinicalbiosimilardevelopment
AT capsiusbjorn pathtowardsatailoredclinicalbiosimilardevelopment
AT triebmichael pathtowardsatailoredclinicalbiosimilardevelopment
AT biaspeter pathtowardsatailoredclinicalbiosimilardevelopment
AT marechaljamiljulie pathtowardsatailoredclinicalbiosimilardevelopment