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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |