Allan Gibofsky, MD: What are the physical differences between a biosimilar and a generic?
Gary R. Lichtenstein, MD: To start, there are different ways that they’re made. Biosimilars are made in host cell lines, whereas the generics are small molecules.
Peter L. Salgo, MD: OK. So one is alive, one isn’t?
Gary R. Lichtenstein, MD: Correct.
Peter L. Salgo, MD: That’s a huge difference, right?
Gary R. Lichtenstein, MD: Exactly.
Peter L. Salgo, MD: It’s not “I know where this carbon goes and where this oxygen should be,” it’s “I’m going to grow this, and it should work the same.” Right?
Allan Gibofsky, MD: Well, yes and no. I’m sure what will develop in a few minutes is that the primary structure, the sequencing of the amino acids, has to be the same for a biosimilar and for a bio-originator.
Peter L. Salgo, MD: That’s important.
Allan Gibofsky, MD: Yes.
Peter L. Salgo, MD: That’s good.
Gary R. Lichtenstein, MD: It’s the tertiary structure, the afucosylation, and all different variations which may occur. It’s a different chemical overall tertiary structure that makes a difference.
Peter L. Salgo, MD: And I think you said that they were grown, not manufactured?
Vibeke Strand, MD: That’s where a lot of the variability can occur. So, during the manufacturing process (when the cells are making the product), we get changes to the secondary, tertiary, and even the quaternary structure. Now, those changes have to be very, very small, so that, in fact, the biosimilar will behave exactly like or highly similar to the reference product. We’ve learned a lot about this because we’ve learned so much about manufacturing biologics over the last 30 years. And thus, we can control for these things. But, more importantly, we can actually test for the variability to assess that any of the variability that occurs doesn’t change how the product actually behaves.
Peter L. Salgo, MD: I have this image based on what you said: that when the cells don’t listen to what you tell them, they’re going to do what they want to do.
Vibeke Strand, MD: That’s true.
Peter L. Salgo, MD: And the trick is to make the cells do enough to make this behave well. Is that fair?
Vibeke Strand, MD: That’s fair. And the other process is that manufacturing these products has improved so much in the last 20 to 30 years with much better scale at much more efficiency of production. All that technology has now allowed us to reverse engineer these products.
Peter L. Salgo, MD: We’ve also got the issue of stability.
Vibeke Strand, MD: Right.
Peter L. Salgo, MD: These are biologicals. These are not pills that you put, I hesitate to say, in the medicine cabinet in your bathroom (because you shouldn’t put pills there). They’re different. They’re not as stable, are they?
Allan Gibofsky, MD: No, they’re not. They can be or they might not be, depending upon the molecule.
Peter L. Salgo, MD: Well, there’s a definitive statement there.
Allan Gibofsky, MD: Well, yes. It depends on the molecule that we’re talking about. But the working definition is that there can be differences in the molecule between a biosimilar and a bio-originator (the reference molecule), but they can’t be clinically meaningful. They can’t affect the safety. They can’t affect the efficacy. They can’t affect the purity or the potency of the molecule that we’re dealing with.
Peter L. Salgo, MD: So, we’re focusing on end effect, as opposed to absolute mirrored structure.
Vibeke Strand, MD: Right.
Allan Gibofsky, MD: Right.
Vibeke Strand, MD: Exactly.
Peter L. Salgo, MD: What are we dealing with in terms of immunogenicity potential?
Vibeke Strand, MD: Essentially, chemical products really have very little, if any, immunogenicity, but all biologics are immunogenic, and they’re different in different people. What’s been interesting about the biosimilar process is that we’ve actually learned a lot more about immunogenicity of both the biosimilar and the reference product because the assays that we’re using now to detect immunogenicity are much more sensitive. They’re much more modern.
Peter L. Salgo, MD: So, the bar is actually higher?
Vibeke Strand, MD: Yes, it is.
Peter L. Salgo, MD: We can examine things in more detail.
Budget Impact Analysis of Biosimilar Natalizumab in the US
Projected savings from biosimilar natalizumab were $452,611 over 3 years, driven by decreased drug acquisition costs and a utilization shift from reference to biosimilar natalizumab.
Biosimilars in America: Overcoming Barriers and Maximizing Impact
July 21st 2024Join us as we explore the complexities of the US biosimilars market, discussing legislative influences, payer and provider adoption factors, and strategies to overcome industry challenges with expert insights from Kyle Noonan, PharmD, MS, value & access strategy manager at Cencora.
Switching Patterns Highlight Nocebo Effect in European Patients Using Amgevita
July 23rd 2024About half of the patients in a European study who transitioned from reference adalimumab to a biosimilar version stayed on the biosimilar at the 1-year mark. However, researchers warned about a possible nocebo effect resulting in some patients switching back to the originator.
Breaking Barriers in Osteoporosis Care: New Denosumab Biosimilars Wyost, Jubbonti Approved
June 16th 2024In this episode, The Center for Biosimilars® delves into the FDA approval of the first denosumab biosimilars, Wyost and Jubbonti (denosumab-bbdz), and discuss their potential to revolutionize osteoporosis treatment with expert insights from 2 rheumatologists.
Real-World Study: No Increase in Health Resource Costs After Infliximab Biosimilar Introduction
July 20th 2024Although biosimilars reduce drug purchasing costs for hospitals, it’s unclear whether those savings might be offset by increased health resource utilization following a non-medical switching initiative.