The American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists (AAPS), a professional organization of 9000 scientists, has published a new white paper in The AAPS Journal that discusses the scientific and methodological considerations of the process of attribute and test method selection, criticality assessment, and assignment of analytical measures to the FDA’s 3 tiers of analytical similarity assessment for biosimilars.
The American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists (AAPS), a professional organization of 9000 scientists, has published a new white paper in The AAPS Journal that discusses the scientific and methodological considerations of the process of attribute and test method selection, criticality assessment, and assignment of analytical measures to the FDA’s 3 tiers of analytical similarity assessment for biosimilars.
“Biosimilar developers face the difficult task of designing analytical studies capable of detecting relevant differences in structure and function from a licensed reference product, without access to detailed product knowledge,” said noted coauthors Kristof Vandekerckhove and Henriette Kuehne, PhD, in a statement. “Generating compelling evidence of analytical similarity despite the paucity of available information requires a methodical approach to study design, in order to select the right analytical tools and data and decide the appropriate level of assessment rigor for each. In our paper, we lay out the emerging ‘gold standard’ approach and illustrate the concepts discussed with examples from successful applications.”
According to the white paper, the main purpose of an analytical similarity assessment is to identify and evaluate all aspects of similarity that could impact purity, potency, safety, and efficacy of the proposed drug. Quality attributes (QAs) may be identified with the help of publicly available reference product information; reported information from regulatory authorities, pharmacovigilance reports, standard-setting organizations, or health agency communications; literature on the reference or related products; or results of detailed analytical characterization of multiple lots of the reference biologic.
After defining QAs, appropriate ways to assess those QAs are selected, based on suitability of the analytical method to measure differences between the biosimilar and its reference, the ability of the method to yield quantitative data, and orthogonality.
Some common QAs and methods to query those attributes include primary structure (assessed by primary sequence, disulfide structure, intact mass, isoelectric point, and extinction coefficient), secondary and tertiary structure (assessed by low-resolution secondary structure or indirect tertiary structure measurements and high-resolution measurements of higher-order structure), glycosylation (assessed by exoglycosidase sequencing and glysosylation site mapping and site occupancy), dose (assessed by protein content and deliverable volume), particulates (assessed by subvisible particles), function (assessed by biological activity or other assays that may vary by proteins, and receptor and/or ligand binding), and product variants (assessed by high—molecular weight species, covalent dimers, purity and impurities, amino acid misincorporations, microsequence heterogeneity, and C- and N-terminal modifications).
Once a comprehensive list of QAs has been established, the next step of the process is to assess risk of each QA for potential patient impact. The relationship of each attribute to pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, efficacy, and safety must be assessed, and useful prior knowledge can be obtained through knowledge of the specific mode of action, publicly available information on the reference drug, knowledge of similar products, and the developers’ own experimental data.
Finally, the FDA recommends assigning each analytical measure to 1 of 3 tiers. The tiers are based on a risk assessment that considers potential clinical impact and uncertainty. Tier 1 is used for the most critical test with direct impact on the mode of action, tier 2 is used for tests of moderate criticality, and tier 3 has the lowest rank of criticality. Each analytical measure used to demonstrate similarity must be assigned to an appropriate tier.
The authors encourage biosimilar product sponsors to expend careful attention on the design of their in vitro study programs and to work closely on their proposals with regulatory agencies prior to execution, as the structural and functional comparison of a proposed biosimilar with its reference continues to gain in importance.
Reference
Vandekerckhove K, Seidl A, Gutka H, et al. Rational selection, criticality assessments, and tiering of quality attributes and test methods for analytical similarity evaluation of biosimilars. AAPS J. 2018;20(68). doi: 10.1208/s12248-018-0230-9.
Biosimilar Market Development Requires Strategic Flexibility and Global Partnerships
April 29th 2025Thriving in the evolving biosimilar market demands bold collaboration, early global partnerships, and a fresh approach to development strategies to overcome uncertainty and drive future success.
Will the FTC Be More PBM-Friendly Under a Second Trump Administration?
February 23rd 2025On this episode of Not So Different, we explore the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) second interim report on pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) with Joe Wisniewski from Turquoise Health, discussing key issues like preferential reimbursement, drug pricing transparency, biosimilars, shifting regulations, and how a second Trump administration could reshape PBM practices.
BioRationality: EMA Accepts Waiver of Clinical Efficacy Testing of Biosimilars
April 21st 2025Sarfaraz K. Niazi, PhD, shares his latest citizen's petition to the FDA, calling on the agency to waive clinical efficacy testing in response to the European Medicines Agency's (EMA) efforts towards the same goal.
Biosimilars Development Roundup for October 2024—Podcast Edition
November 3rd 2024On this episode of Not So Different, we discuss the GRx+Biosims conference, which included discussions on data transparency, artificial intelligence (AI), and collaboration to enhance the global supply chain for biosimilars and generic drugs, as well as the evolving requirements for biosimilar devices.
How State Substitution Laws Shape Insulin Biosimilar Adoption
April 15th 2025States with fewer restrictions on biosimilar substitution tend to see higher uptake of interchangeable insulin glargine, showing how even small policy details can significantly influence biosimilar adoption and expand access to more affordable insulin.
Experts Pressure Congress to Remove Roadblocks for Biosimilars
April 12th 2025Lawmakers and expert witnesses emphasized the potential of biosimilars to lower health care costs by overcoming barriers like pharmacy benefit manager practices, limited awareness, and regulatory delays to improve access and competition in chronic disease management during a recent congressional hearing.