Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Raymond Kaiser, PhD Global Vice President BioPharmaceutical CMC Solutions Covance
Presentation Outline
What is Biosimilarity
Q&A
What is a Biosimilar?
Biosimilars are follow-on biologics
New versions of innovator biopharmaceutical products, following patent expiry
It is practically impossible for two different manufacturers to produce two identical biopharmaceuticals if identical host expression systems, processes and equivalent technologies are not used This has to be demonstrated in an extensive comparability program
There are no clinically meaningful differences between the biological product and the reference product in terms of the safety, purity, and potency of the product
classes of:
US FDA
Biologics
Empowers FDA to develop standards to evaluate and approve biosimilars Risk-based totality-of-the-evidence approach
FDA
Health Canada
Guidance
came out in 2010 came out in 2009 document came out in 2009
Japan
Guideline
WHO
Guideline
ROW
Argentina,
Australia (amending), Brazil, Jordan, Korea, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Taiwan, Turkey, Venezuela Guidelines available Colombia, Cuba, India, Mexico, South Africa, and Thailand Draft Guidelines available
Biosimilar Regulatory Guidance documents and discussions are on-going and expanding globally.
5
Regulatory Environment - EU
Established EMA approval pathway
Guideline on similar biological medicinal products containing biotechnologyderived proteins as active substances: quality issues
From 2005
Guideline on similar biological medicinal products containing biotechnologyderived proteins as active substances: nonclinical and clinical issues
Regulatory Environment US
FDA approval pathway established
Biologics Price and Innovation Act passed in 2010 empowers FDA to develop standards to evaluate and approve biosimilars
FDA February 2012 draft guidance documents
Scientific Considerations in Demonstrating Biosimilarity to a Reference Product - Risk-based totality-of-the-evidence approach Quality Considerations in Demonstrating Biosimilarity to a Reference Protein Product - Overview of analytical factors to consider, includes analytical, physicochemical and biological characterization Biosimilars: Questions and Answers Regarding Implementation of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 - Provides answers to common questions that may arise in the early stages of product development
Analytical studies demonstrating that the biological product is highly similar to the reference product notwithstanding minor differences in clinically inactive components Animal studies (including the assessment of toxicity) A clinical study or studies (including the assessment of immunogenicity and pharmacokinetics (PK) or pharmacodynamics (PD)) that are sufficient to demonstrate safety, purity, and potency in 1 or more appropriate conditions of use for which the reference product is licensed
FDA may determine, at its discretion, that an element described above is unnecessary in a 351(k) application
8
In EU this is law FDA will consider non-US registered reference product with studies to bridge to US reference Japan requires Japanese registered product
Early engagement with Regulatory Authority is vital Extrapolation of indications will be considered
At least one Phase III comparable efficacy study (usually with equivalence design) is required for licence
specificity & affinity to epitope potency using CDC, ADCC &/or functional in vitro cell-based assays
Limited in vivo Nonclinical PK/PD studies, Toxicology (SD/MD), and Immunogenicity studies (requirement for nonhuman primates?) Limited Clinical Phase I
comparability of PK/PD & Immunogenicity in volunteers or patients at reference dose and regimen for targeted indications comparability for safety and efficacy (single pivotal) based on PK/PD, surrogate endpoints and clinical outcomes
Phase III
Extensive Post-Approval
REMS and pharmacovigilance planning including patient registry(ies) for assessment of incidence of specific safety issues
10
Development Challenges
Regulatory, manufacturing and marketing complexities
Biosimilar must be highly similar to innovator biologic, which can be difficult to demonstrate as all data for innovator will be lacking
A comparability exercise has to be followed with the innovator product at all levels of product development
Biosimilarity?
How close do the proposed biosimilar products (figures BE) compare to the reference product (figure A)? Advances in current state-ofthe-art analytical methods enhance the likelihood that a product will be highly similar to another product by better targeting the original product's physicochemical and functional properties
FDA View
Mark McCamish, Novartis, International Conference on Drug Development, Austin TX, 29FEB2012
14
Characterization
Comprehensive Characterization
Physicochemical as well as biological Multiple batches from innovator spanning a number of years Understand innovator variability
15
Biosimilars at Covance
Year on year doubling of analytical demand for Biosimilars since 2008 Upgraded Protein Chemistry techniques with additional characterization to demonstrate comparability or understand differences Moved toward higher defining analytics (e.g. UPLC, LC/MS)
Compounds
DISCOVER Y
1000
500
250
100
20
DRUG DEVELOPMENT
COMMERCIALIZATIO N
Research
Preclinical
Phase I Phase II
Phase IV
Amount of Characterisation
IND/CTA
NDA /BLA
Approval
Biosimilar
NBE
16
Characterization of the Innovator (beware literature!) Characterization of the Biosimilar Monitor Manufacture Process is the product Monitor changes in Innovator
Analytical tools for characterizing biopharmaceuticals and the implications for Biosimilars. S Berkowitz, J Mazzeo, G Jones, Nature review Vol 11, Jul 2012
17
18
Protein Heterogeneity
Amino Acid Substitution AA Misincorporation (e.g. METNLE) N- and C-terminal mods Mismatched S-S bonds Folding Truncation Aggregation Multimer Dissociation Denaturation Acetylation Fatty acid acylation Deamidation
Oxidation Carbamylation Carboxylation Formylation -Carboxyglutamylation O-linked Glycosylation N-linked Glycosylation Methylation Phosporylation Sulphation PEGylation etc.
19
Analytical Technique
Mass Spectrometry (MS), peptide mapping, Edman Sequence analysis, chromatographic separations S-S bonding, calorimetry, HDX and Ion mobility MS, NMR, CD, FT & Raman spectroscopy, fluorescence, chromatography Chromatography, ion mobility MS Chromatography, gel & capillary electrophoresis, light scatter Anion exchange, enzymatic digestion, peptide mapping, CE, MS Chromatography, peptide mapping Ligand & receptor binding (ELISA, SPR), signal transduction Analytical ultracentrifugation, size-exclusion chromatography, field flow fractionation, light scatter, microscopy Electrophoresis, chromatography, MS Chromatography, proteomics, immunoassays, PCR
Subunit Interactions
Heterogeneity of size, charge, hydrophobicity Glycosylation PEGylation & isomers Bioactivity, cellular and animal bioassays Aggregation Proteolysis Impurities
20
Mass Spectrometry
Intact mass, comparison of Glycan variants. The difference in 56Da attributed to incorrect amino acid sequence
21
Resp. Diff.
Resp. Diff.
40
DS Biosimilar
40
30
30
DP Biosimilar
20
20
10
10
RU 90
Sample
70
Biosimilar
50
Innovator
Resp. Diff.
Innovator
30
Drug Substance Lot No. KD (nM) 1 301 2 399 3 412 1 415 2 350 3 397 Drug Product Lot No. KD (nM) 1 202 2 172 3 118 1 138 2 188 3 158
% Difference
4.40
Sample Biosimilar
% Difference
10
-1.64
Innovator
-10 0 50 100 150 Time 200 250 300 350 s
22
Main - 7.613
Absorbance
0.12 0.10 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.00 6.60 6.80 7.00 7.20 7.40 7.60
7.808
7.991
7.80
8.00 Minutes
8.145
8.20
8.40
8.60
8.80
9.00
9.20
9.40
SampleName: SB03iCE12-ADM3011P1 5C Lyo Date Acquired: 15-Dec-2010 20:16:15 -05:00 Result Id: 1581 SampleName: SB03iCE08-WL00039785 5C Lyo Date Acquired: 15-Dec-2010 18:55:04 -05:00 Result Id: 1580
23
Carboxypeptidase Treatment
0.28 0.26 0.24 0.22 0.20 0.18 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.10 0.08 0.06
Absorbance
7.430
Main - 7.533
7.249
7.333
7.159
7.20
7.40
7.60
7.80
8.00 Minutes
8.20
8.40
8.60
8.80
9.00
9.20
9.40
9.60
SampleName: SB07 iCE 05-WL00039785 9M RecoP3 Date Acquired: 21-Jul-2011 18:53:27 -05:00 Result Id: 4011 SampleName: SB07 iCE 09-ADM30011P1 9M RecoP1 Date Acquired: 21-Jul-2011 20:34:30 -05:00 Result Id: 4017
24
Forced Degradation
0.130 0.120 0.110 0.100 0.090
Absorbance
7.265
7.138
7.382
0.050 0.040 0.030 0.020 0.010 0.000 -0.010 6.00 6.20 6.40 6.60 6.80 7.00
6.927
6.996
6.798
7.805
7.906
7.20
7.40
7.60
8.041
8.20
8.40
8.60
8.80
9.00
9.20
9.40
9.60
9.80
SampleName: SB09 iCE 12-ADM3001P1 30C Rec Date Acquired: 20-Sep-2011 21:19:46 -05:00 Result Id: 4716 SampleName: SB10 iCE 13-WL00039785 30C Rec Date Acquired: 20-Sep-2011 21:27:34 -05:00 Result Id: 4758
25
Impact of Glycosylation?
26
Simplify by De-sialylation?
0.30 0.28 0.26 0.24 0.22 0.20 0.18 0.16
Absorbance
0.14 0.12 0.10 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.00 -0.02 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 6.00 6.50 Minutes 7.00 7.50 8.00 8.50 9.00 9.50
27
N-Glycan Similarity
2200.00
G0F
2000.00
1800.00
1600.00
G1F
1400.00
G2F
Energy
1200.00
1000.00
Man5
G1F
800.00
600.00
400.00
G0
G1 G1
200.00
0.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 Minutes 20.00 22.00 24.00 26.00 28.00 30.00
28
Mass Spectrometry
29
Peptide Map
30
NOTE: Originators make biosimilars every time there is a manufacturing process change
Enbrel (Etanercept)
31
Differences/shift in glycosylation pattern results in different potency in cell-based assays Product label remained unchanged indicating comparable quality Schiestl et al. Nat. Biotechnol. 2011; 29: 310-312
33
Differences/shift in glycosylation pattern Product label remained unchanged indicating comparable quality
Schiestl et al. Nat. Biotechnol. 2011; 29: 310-312
34
Smooth manufacturing scale up, no process changes Methods ready to demonstrate comparability without development. One size fits all
35
36
Use orthogonal analytical methods to confirm observations and expectations. State-of-the-art techniques are expected Realize each analytical method has strengths and weaknesses:
Spectral methods measure averages Qualitative vs. quantitative? Variable sensitivity etc.
38
Summary
Biosimilar regulatory guidelines continue to evolve Demand for biosimilar CMC development continues to grow Demonstrating comparability requires extensive analysis pre- and post-clinically. Must completely characterize innovator product We are making progress linking some, but not all, biological properties to critical quality attributes; therefore,
Given a gradation of a biologics complexity, a one size fits all strategy for biosimilars will not be possible
39
Molecular Development (Program Management & Clinical) Regulatory Strategy, EMA/FDA Documentation Prep & Meeting Attendance, CTA/IND/BLA Support and Submission
40
Acknowledgments
Our many global clients who have challenged us with various Biosimilar products Sian Estdale, Raymond Donninger, Ji Wu and the rest of the Covance team
41
42