Search

The totality-of-evidence approach requires that similarity between a proposed biosimilar and a reference biologic is demonstrated across a range of analytical, preclinical, and clinical parameters to establish biosimilarity. We describe the totality of evidence for Sandoz biosimilar pegfilgrastim (LA-EP2006 [marketed as Ziextenzo]) that supported its regulatory approval in Europe and the United States. Analytical similarity to the reference biologic [marketed by Amgen as Neulasta] was first investigated with regard to physiochemical quality attributes such as primary structure, pegylation, higher-order structures, variants and impurities, molecular size variants, and formulation (protein content, pH, excipients, etc.). In vitro biological activity studies were performed to examine the primary mechanism of action of pegfilgrastim. Bioequivalence (clinical pharmacokinetics [PK] and pharmacodynamics [PD]) of Sandoz biosimilar pegfilgrastim to the reference biologic was studied in healthy volunteers; efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity were assessed during confirmatory clinical efficacy studies in patients undergoing treatment for breast cancer. No meaningful or relevant differences were identified between Sandoz biosimilar pegfilgrastim and the reference biologic during analytical testing. Similar receptor binding and induction of cellular proliferation in vitro confirmed no functional differences between the biologics. Clinical studies in healthy adult participants demonstrated PK/PD biosimilarity and a similar safety profile between biosimilar and reference pegfilgrastim. Clinical studies in a sensitive patient population also demonstrated similar efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity between Sandoz biosimilar pegfilgrastim and the reference biologic. The totality of evidence confirms that Sandoz biosimilar pegfilgrastim matches the reference biologic and will therefore provide equivalent efficacy and safety in all eligible indications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For biosimilar drug development programs, it is essential to demonstrate that there are no clinically significant differences between the proposed biosimilar therapeutic (biosimilar) and its reference product (originator). Based on a stepwise comprehensive comparability exercise, the biosimilar must demonstrate similarity to the originator in physicochemical characteristics, biological activity, pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and safety, including immunogenicity. The goal of the immunogenicity assessment is to evaluate potential differences between the proposed biosimilar product and the originator product in the incidence and severity of human immune responses. Establishing that there are no clinically meaningful differences in the immune response between the products is a key element in the demonstration of biosimilarity. An issue of practical, regulatory, and financial importance is to establish whether a two-assay (based on the biosimilar and originator respectively) or a one-assay approach (based on the biosimilar) is optimal for the comparative immunogenicity assessment. This paper recommends the use of a single, biosimilar-based assay for assessing immunogenic similarity in support of biosimilar drug development. The development and validation of an ADA assay used for a biosimilar program should include all the assessments recommended for an innovator program (10–16, 29). In addition, specific parameters also need to be evaluated, to gain confidence that the assay can detect antibodies against both the biosimilar and the originator. Specifically, the biosimilar and the originator should be compared in antigenic equivalence, to assess the ability of the biosimilar and the originator to bind in a similar manner to the positive control(s), as well as in the confirmatory assay and drug tolerance experiments. Practical guidance for the development and validation of anti-drug antibody (ADA) assays to assess immunogenicity of a biosimilar in comparison to the originator, using the one-assay approach, are described herein. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: HX575 (biosimilar epoetin alfa) was approved in Europe in 2007 for the treatment of chronic kidney disease (CKD)-related anemia. This study assessed the clinical equivalence of HX575 with the US-licensed reference epoetin alfa (Epogen®/Procrit®, Amgen/Janssen) following subcutaneous (SC) administration in dialysis patients with CKD-related anemia.Methods: This randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, multicenter study (NCT01693029) was conducted at 49 US clinical sites. Eligible patients were aged ≥18 years, had end-stage renal disease, were on hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis for ≥6 months (or ≥12 months in the case of a failed kidney transplant), and were receiving treatment with stable SC doses of epoetin alfa. Eligible patients also had mean hemoglobin (Hb) concentration between 9.0 and 11.5 g/dL during the screening period. The primary endpoint was the mean absolute change in Hb concentration between the screening/baseline period (week-4 to week-1) and the evaluation period (weeks 21 to 28).Results: Hb values at the end of the evaluation period and the Hb change from baseline to evaluation period were similar between treatment groups. The estimated difference between groups in mean absolute change in Hb concentration was -0.093 g/dL, with 90% CI (-0.23 to 0.04) entirely within the pre-specified equivalence limits (-0.5 to 0.5 g/dL). The safety profile of each medicine was similar and as expected in dialysis patients, and neither method of treatment led to the development of neutralizing, clinically relevant antibodies.Conclusions: SC HX575 in dialysis patients with renal anemia was therapeutically equivalent to the reference medicine in terms of maintaining stable Hb levels and safety. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]