medigraphic.com
ISSN 0016-3813 (Print)

2015, Number 3

<< Back Next >>

Gac Med Mex 2015; 151 (3)

Preclinical in vitro and in vivo models for the assessment of biological activity in biosimilarity studies

Escobedo-Moratilla A, Barba RAP, Pérez-Urizar JT

Language: Spanish
References: 40
Page: 377-386
PDF size: 260.61 Kb.


ABSTRACT

A drug that contains a recombinant protein as an active principle is called a biotechnological drug or biopharmaceutical. There are currently over 300 biopharmaceuticals worldwide. Many of these contains a similar active principle (biosimilar drug) as other previously registered (innovator drug). It has suggested that due to the complex implications in a formulation containing a protein, the manufacturing process is a key factor for efficacy and safety requirements. In fact, certain variability has been detected of the protein properties in different lots (or batches) of the same manufacturer, which produce changes at a clinical level. For this reason, the evaluation of biosimilar drugs has acquired great relevance, being the preclinical level of one of the more important stages of the development due to its lower cost (with respect to the clinical level) and its high capacity to detect formulation-manufacture problems. However, the demonstration of comparability at physicochemical, preclinical, and clinical levels is required in order to achieve market registration. In this review the in vitro and in vivo models used for the assessment of proposed biosimilars will be discussed.


REFERENCES

  1. IMARC Group. Global biopharmaceutical market report & forecast (2012–2017). 2012. [Internet] Consultado el 16 de febrero de 2014. Disponible en: http://www.imarcgroup.com/biotechnology-industry/.

  2. FiercePharma. The 15 best-selling drugs of 2012. 2012. [Internet] Consultado el 16 de febrero de 2014. Disponible en: http://www.fiercepharma. com/special-reports/15-best-selling-drugs-2012.

  3. Knezevic I, Griffiths E. Biosimilars--global issues, national solutions. Biologicals. 2011;39(5):252-5.

  4. Walsh G. Biopharmaceuticals: Biochemistry and Biotechnology. New Jersey, EE.UU.: John Wiley & Sons Limited; 2003.

  5. Chirino AJ, Mire-Sluis A. Characterizing biological products and assessing comparability following manufacturing changes. Nat Biotechnol. 2004;22(11):1383-91.

  6. Dranitsaris G, Amir E, Dorward K. Biosimilars of biological drug therapies: regulatory, clinical and commercial considerations. Drugs. 2011;71(12):1527-36.

  7. EMA (European Medicines Agency). 2005. Guideline on similar biological medicinal products. [Internet] Consultado el 16 de febrero de 2014. Disponible en: http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/ Scientific_guideline/2009/09/WC500003517.pdf.

  8. DOF (Diario Oficial de la Federación). 2011. Decreto por el que se reforman y adicionan diversas disposiciones del Reglamento de Insumos para la Salud. [Internet] Consultado el 16 de febrero de 2014. Disponible en: http://dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=5214882&fecha= 19/10/2011.

  9. FDA (Food and Drug Administration). 2012. Scientific Considerations in Demonstrating Biosimilarity to a Reference Product. [Internet] Consultado el 16 de febrero de 2014. Disponible en: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/ GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM291128.pdf.

  10. ICH (International Conference on Harmonisation). 2004. Harmonised tripartite guideline. Comparability of biotechnological/biological products subject to changes in their manufacturing process Q5E. [Internet] Consultado el 16 de febrero de 2014. Disponible en: http://www.ich.org/fileadmin/ Public_Web_Site/ICH_Products/Guidelines/Quality/Q5E/Step4/ Q5E_Guideline.pdf.

  11. WHO (World Health Organization). 2006. Biosimilars. [Internet] Consultado el 16 de febrero de 2014. Disponible en: http://www.who.int/medicines/ services/inn/inn_bio/en/.

  12. WHO (World Health Organization). 2009. Guidelines on evaluation of similar biotherapeutic products (SBPs). [Internet] Consultado el 16 de febrero de 2014. Disponible en: http://www.who.int/medicines/services/inn/inn_bio/en/.

  13. Ibarra-Cabrera R, Mena-Pérez SC, Bondani-Guasti A, García-Arrazola R. Review on the worldwide regulatory framework for biosimilars focusing on the Mexican case as an emerging market in Latin America. Biotechnol Adv. 2013;31(8):1333-43.

  14. López Silva C. Mexico recovers leadership on regulation of biosimilar biotech drugs. Gac Med Mex. 2012;148(1):83-90.

  15. DOF (Diario Oficial de la Federación). 2012. NOM-EM-001-SSA1-2012. [Internet] Consultado el 16 de febrero de 2014. Disponible en: http://www. dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=5269530&fecha=20/09/2012.

  16. DOF (Diario Oficial de la Federación). 2013. NOM-177-SSA1-2013. [Internet] Consultado el 16 de febrero de 2014. Disponible en: http://www. dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=5314833&fecha=20/09/2013.

  17. Holloway C, Mueller-Berghaus J, Lima BS, et al. Scientific considerations for complex drugs in light of established and emerging regulatory guidance. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2012;1276:26-36.

  18. McCamish M, Woollett G. The state of the art in the development of biosimilars. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2012;91(3):405-17.

  19. Berkowitz SA, Engen JR, Mazzeo JR, Jones GB. Analytical tools for characterizing biopharmaceuticals and the implications for biosimilars. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2012;11(7):527-40.

  20. Park SS, Park J, Ko J, et al. Biochemical assessment of erythropoietin products from Asia versus US Epoetin alfa manufactured by Amgen. J Pharm Sci. 2009;98(5):1688-99.

  21. Maity S, Ullanat R, Lahiri S, et al. A non-innovator version of etanercept for treatment of arthritis. Biologicals. 2011;39(6):384-95.

  22. Tan Q, Guo Q, Fang C, et al. Characterization and comparison of commercially available TNF receptor 2-Fc fusion protein products. MAbs. 2012;4(6):761-74.

  23. Skrlin A, Radic I, Vuletic M, et al. Comparison of the physicochemical properties of a biosimilar filgrastim with those of reference filgrastim. Biologicals. 2010;38(5):557-66.

  24. Sörgel F, Lerch H, Lauber T. Physicochemical and biologic comparability of a biosimilar granulocyte colony-stimulating factor with its reference product. BioDrugs. 2010;24(6):347-57.

  25. Seo KS, Yoon JW, Na KH, et al. Evaluation of process efficiency and bioequivalence of biosimilar recombinant human chorionic gonadotropin (rhCG). BioDrugs. 2011;25(2):115-27.

  26. Meager A, Dolman C, Dilger P, et al. An assessment of biological potency and molecular characteristics of different innovator and noninnovator interferon-beta products. J Interferon Cytokine Res. 2011; 31(4):383-92.

  27. Hu X, Olivier K, Polack E, et al. In vivo pharmacology and toxicology evaluation of polyethylene glycol-conjugated interferon beta-1a. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2011;338(3):984-96.

  28. Dorvignit D, Palacios JL, Merino M, et al. Expression and biological characterization of an anti-CD20 biosimilar candidate antibody: a case study. MAbs. 2012;4(4):488-96.

  29. Visser J, Feuerstein I, Stangler T, Schmiederer T, Fritsch C, Schiestl M. Physicochemical and functional comparability between the proposed biosimilar rituximab GP2013 and originator rituximab. BioDrugs. 2013;27(5):495-507.

  30. da Silva A, Kronthaler U, Koppenburg V, et al. Target-directed development and preclinical characterization of the proposed biosimilar rituximab GP2013. Leuk Lymphoma. 2014;55(7):1609-17.

  31. Ramos AS, Schmidt CA, Andrade SS, Fronza M, Rafferty B, Dalmora SL. Biological evaluation of recombinant human erythropoietin in pharmaceutical products. Braz J Med Biol Res. 2003;36(11):1561-9.

  32. Brinks V, Hawe A, Basmeleh AH, et al. Quality of original and biosimilar epoetin products. Pharm Res. 2011;28(2):386-93.

  33. Vanz AL, Renard G, Palma MS, et al. Human granulocyte colony stimulating factor (hG-CSF): cloning, overexpression, purification and characterization. Microb Cell Fact. 2008;7:13.

  34. EMA (European Medicines Agency). 2014. European public assessment reports. [Internet] Consultado el 6 de marzo de 2014. Disponible en: http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages%2Fmedicines%- 2Flanding%2Fepar_search.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac058001d124&- searchTab=searchByAuthType&alreadyLoaded=true&isNewQuery=true& status=Authorised&status=Withdrawn&status=Suspended&status= Refused&keyword=Enter+keywords&searchType=name&taxonomyPath=& treeNumber=&searchGenericType=biosimilars&genericsKeywordSearch= Submit.

  35. COFEPRIS (Comisión Federal Para la Protección Contra Riesgos Sanitarios). 2014. Registros Sanitarios de Medicamentos. [Internet] Consultado el 6 de marzo de 2014. Disponible en: http://www.cofepris.gob.mx/ AS/Paginas/Registros%20Sanitarios/RegistroSanitarioMedicamentos. aspx.

  36. FDA (Food and Drug Administration). 2014. Approved Drug Products. [Internet] Consultado el 6 de marzo de 2014. Disponible en: http://www. accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/drugsatfda/index.cfm.

  37. Brockmeyer C, Seidl A. Binocrit: assessment of quality, safety and efficacy of biopharmaceuticals. Eur J Hosp Pharm. 2009;15:34-40.

  38. Sörgel F, Thyroff-Friesinger U, Vetter A, Vens-Cappell B, Kinzig M. Bioequivalence of HX575 (recombinant human epoetin alfa) and a comparator epoetin alfa after multiple subcutaneous administrations. Pharmacology. 2009;83(2):122-30.

  39. Büchler T. Therapeutic equivalence and effectiveness of Binocrit (HX575) in patients with anemia caused by chemotherapy. Klin Onkol. 2011;24(2):147-8.

  40. DOF (Diario Oficial de la Federación). 2012. Lineamientos que deberán cumplir los medicamentos biotecnológicos biocomparables. [Internet] Consultado el 6 de marzo de 2014. Disponible en: http://dof.gob.mx/ nota_detalle.php?codigo=5255257&fecha=19/06/2012.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com