“It is now time to reassess whether the current clinical development paradigm really makes sense from a scientific and economic perspective while millions of patients still have limited or, more often, no access to life-changing/life-saving [monoclonal antibodies],” writes Francois-Xavier Frapaise, MD, PhD.
Phase 3 clinical trials that compare proposed biosimilars with their reference molecules are a cornerstone of the regulatory approval process. However, writing in BioDrugs, Francois-Xavier Frapaise, MD, PhD, argues that as analytical methods for understanding the structure—function relationship of biotherapeutics have advanced, large and expensive phase 3 trials for biosimilars may no longer provide the most meaningful information on the equivalence of biosimilars and their reference products.
Frapaise writes that the primary structure of proteins and possible post-translational modifications can be reliably characterized by a variety of methods, including peptide mapping by liquid chromatography—mass spectrometry. Bioactivity of proteins can be assessed by measuring cell uptake and proliferation, among other methods. A variety of techniques, such as binding analysis by surface plasmon resonance, allow for assessment of target binding. Protein content and concentration can be reliably measured, and the presence of high–molecular-weight species or aggregates can be readily detected. Furthermore, a variety of means exist to assess higher-order structures, and to measure charge distribution, glycosylation, and process-related impurities.
Not only have analytical methods progressed in their level of sophistication, writes Frapaise, but developers are also better equipped to understand the structure—activity relationships of biologic medicines; for example, developers are now well aware that the glycan profile can impact a product’s safety.
According to Frapaise, comparative phase 1 pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies, which are generally large in size and expose volunteers to the investigational compounds for up to 1 year, can address the question of immunogenicity without the need for a phase 3 study.
In fact, he argues, phase 3 trials pose a variety of challenges, and have inherent limitations. They are not powered to detect meaningful differences in safety profiles, says Frapaise, and when numerical differences in adverse events are present, these imbalances are difficult to interpret. Detecting differences in efficacy is also challenging, he says, in trials that enroll approximately 500 to 800 patients.
“It is also worth noting that the chances of observing differences in immunogenicity in [rheumatoid arthritis] patients, many of them receiving methotrexate—an immunosuppressant—are, at best, remote,” he adds.
Therefore, a different approach to confirming biosimilarity could be the use of postmarketing studies and real-world data, he argues. Taking such an approach could ease the financial burden and time requirement for biosimilar development.
Read more about real-world evidence in biosimilars.
“It is now time to reassess whether the current clinical development paradigm really makes sense from a scientific and economic perspective while millions of patients still have limited or, more often, no access life-changing/life-saving [monoclonal antibodies],” concludes Frapaise. In many cases, he says, chemistry, manufacturing, and controls information and meaningful phase 1 studies will leave little residual uncertainty about the biosimilarity of products, and properly designed postapproval studies could be “more appropriate” than phase 3 trials.
Reference
Frapaise FX. The end of phase 3 clinical trials in biosimilars development? BioDrugs. 2018;32(4): 319-324. doi: 10.1007/s40259-018-0287-0.
Phase 1 Study Finds Comparable PK, PD Parameters in Biosimilar GP40141 vs Reference Romiplostim
November 25th 2023A phase 1 analysis confirms that romiplostim biosimilar candidate GP40141 has comparable pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) parameters in healthy volunteers compared with the reference product.
Biosimilars Regulatory Roundup for September 2023—Podcast Edition
October 1st 2023On this episode, we discuss several regulatory updates from around the globe, including some European and Japanese approvals, the FDA’s 2-day workshop on the present science behind clinical efficacy testing for biosimilars, and streamlining biosimilar development.
Eye on Pharma: Adalimumab Updates; New Eylea Biosimilar Lawsuit; Canada Gains Stelara Biosimilar
November 22nd 2023Several companies make moves to further their adalimumab biosimilars, Regeneron sues Celltrion over biosimilar for Eylea (aflibercept), and Health Canada grants marketing authorization for biosimilar referencing Stelara (ustekinumab).
How Streamlining Development Can Save the US Biosimilar Industry
August 20th 2023On this episode of Not So Different, Julie Reed, executive director of the Biosimilars Forum, expanded on ways to make biosimilar development faster and cheaper without compromising on safety and efficacy and how these practices can ensure a sustainable market for the future.
Part 3: Study Questions Usefulness of Clinical Efficacy Trials for Oncology Biosimilars in Europe
November 16th 2023In part 3 of a 3-part series for Global Biosimilars Week, The Center for Biosimilars® reviews an analysis investigating whether clinical efficacy studies have an impact on prescribing decisions for oncology biosimilars across Europe.
Eye on Pharma: Denosumab Biosimilar Data; COA Forms New Committee; IGBA and WHO Collaborate
November 8th 2023Samsung Bioepis releases data for its denosumab biosimilar candidate; the Community Oncology Alliance (COA) forms the Drug Policy and Regulation Committee; the International Generic and Biosimilar Association (IGBA) and the World Health Organization (WHO) collaborate on a new initiative.