Optimizing development of anti-TNFα biosimilars based on 10 years’ experience
Routine regulatory requirements for large comparative efficacy trials (CETs) to support marketing approval of monoclonal antibody (mAb) biosimilars have been the focus of extensive debate in the last few years. This review examines the mounting evidence, accumulated over the past decade, focusing on...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Open Exploration Publishing Inc.
2025-02-01
|
| Series: | Exploration of Musculoskeletal Diseases |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.explorationpub.com/uploads/Article/A100782/100782.pdf |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | Routine regulatory requirements for large comparative efficacy trials (CETs) to support marketing approval of monoclonal antibody (mAb) biosimilars have been the focus of extensive debate in the last few years. This review examines the mounting evidence, accumulated over the past decade, focusing on relevant literature and data published in the European Product Assessment Reports (EPARs) for the fifteen anti-TNFα biosimilars approved to date. The potential for residual uncertainties that may require resolution through CETs following comparative physico-chemical, in-vitro potency, and single dose studies in healthy subjects is examined. It is noted that structural and physicochemical differences between biosimilars and reference products are detectable using modern analytical methods at levels well below those that could impact clinical outcomes, and that in vitro potency testing is fully capable of revealing clinically relevant differences. Additionally, comparative pharmacokinetic studies in healthy participants provide a sensitive assessment of potential differences in drug exposure and immunogenicity. The added value of CETs is further questioned in the light of the fact that anti-TNFα’s display a flat dose-response relationship, meaning that unlike cell-based assays, CETs have limited sensitivity to detect potency differences. Initial concerns about extrapolating data from rheumatoid arthritis studies to support marketing approval of other indications such as inflammatory bowel disease for which not all anti-TNFα’s are effective have been alleviated by post-approval studies. Additionally, as of the end of 2024, no cases where clinical efficacy data were necessary to resolve residual quality concerns have arisen following regulatory assessment of 56 mAb biosimilars and fusion proteins. CETs add significant cost and delay to the development of biosimilars and the time is now ripe to re-examine the need for these CET’s and for further evolution in regulatory thinking. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2836-6468 |