Advertisement

Biosimilars pp 261-303 | Cite as

Principles of Analytical Similarity Assessment

  • Kristof VandekerckhoveEmail author
  • Russell Reeve
Chapter
Part of the AAPS Advances in the Pharmaceutical Sciences Series book series (AAPS, volume 34)

Abstract

Detailed evaluation of the similarity in structural and functional properties between a proposed biosimilar product and the reference product necessitates a carefully designed analytical study program. Although regulatory agencies, such as EMA and US FDA, have published guidance documents outlining the requirements for analytical similarity assessment, the implications are often not fully understood by biosimilar developers. This chapter discusses important considerations for all aspects of the design of the analytical similarity assessment, including the selection of the test materials; the product characteristics to be compared, and the associated analytical testing methods and plan; suitability of analytical procedures, in design and performance; processing and interpretation of analytical test data; and the methods for assessment of analytical study results. The design of comparative forced degradation studies, intended to compare the pattern and kinetics of product degradation, is also discussed. Differences in regulatory expectations between EU and USA are identified, together with their implications for the conception of a study program intended to support product approval in both jurisdictions.

Keywords

Analytical similarity Analytical methods Biosimilar Quality attributes Forced degradation Tiering Criticality assessment Process shift Design of experiments Statistics 

References

  1. Abès R, Teillaud J-L. Impact of glycosylation on effector functions of therapeutic IgG. Pharmaceuticals. 2010;3:146–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alt N, Zhang TY, Motchnik P, Taticek R, Quarmby V, Schlothauer T, Beck H, Emrich T, Harris RJ. Determination of critical quality attributes for monoclonal antibodies using quality by design principles. Biologicals. 2016;44:291–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Apostol I, Brooks PD, Mathews AJ. Application of high-precision isotope ratio monitoring mass spectrometry to identify the biosynthetic origins of proteins. Protein Sci. 2001;10:1466–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chan CP. Forced degradation studies: current trends and future perspectives for protein-based therapeutics. Expert Rev Proteomics. 2016;13(7):651–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clynes RA, Towers TL, Presta LG, Ravetch JV. Inhibitory Fc receptors modulate in vivo cytotoxicity against tumor targets. Nat Med. 2000;6:443–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. CMC Biotech Working Group. A-Mab: a case study in bioprocess development (version 2.1). October 30, 2009.Google Scholar
  7. Dong X (Cassie). 2nd Statistical and Data Management Approaches for Biotechnology Drug Development; 2015 Sept 29–30; Rockville, MD, USA.Google Scholar
  8. EMA. CHMP/437/04 Rev 1: guideline on similar biological medicinal products. October 23, 2014a.Google Scholar
  9. EMA. EMA/CHMP/BWP/247713/2012: guideline on similar biological medicinal products containing biotechnology-derived proteins as active substance: quality issues (revision 1). May 22, 2014b.Google Scholar
  10. EMA. EMA/CHMP/138502/2017: reflection paper on statistical methodology for the comparative assessment of quality attributes in drug development (draft). March 23, 2017a.Google Scholar
  11. EMA. Herceptin European public assessment report - scientific discussion. [Online] [Cited: May 10, 2017b.] http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Scientific_Discussion/human/000278/WC500049816.pdf.
  12. EMA. Aranesp product information - all authorised presentations. [Online] [Cited: February 23, 2018.] http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_All_Authorised_presentations/human/000332/WC500026150.pdf.
  13. European Biopharmaceutical Enterprises (EBE). Concept paper: forced degradation studies for therapeutic proteins. March 24, 2015.Google Scholar
  14. European Parliament and Council. EU directive 2001/83/EC (As Amended). s.l. : EudraLex Vol. 1; Consolidated Version.Google Scholar
  15. European Parliament and Council. Directive 2004/27/EC. March 31, 2004.Google Scholar
  16. Freitag AJ. The immunogenicity of protein aggregates: studies on a murine monoclonal antibody in wild-type mice. Ph.D. thesis, Faculty of Chemistry and Pharmacy, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Munich, Germany (2012)Google Scholar
  17. Hawe A, et al. Forced degradation of therapeutic proteins. J Pharm Sci. 2012;101:895–913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. ICH. Q5C: stability testing of biotechnological/biological products. November 30, 1995.Google Scholar
  19. ICH. Q1D: bracketing and matrixing designs for stability testing of new drug substances and products. February 7, 2002.Google Scholar
  20. ICH. Q5E: comparability of biotechnological/biological products subject to changes in their manufacturing process. November 18, 2004.Google Scholar
  21. ICH. Q8(R2): pharmaceutical development. August 2009.Google Scholar
  22. Kamerzell TJ, Esfandiary R, Joshi SB, Middaugh CR, Volkin DB. Protein-excipient interactions: mechanisms and biophysical characterization applied to protein formulation development. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2011;63:1118–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Karow M. Applying risk ranking for similarity into the QTPP for antibody biosimilars. 2016 PDA biosimilars conference, Baltimore, MD, USA. 20–21 June 2016.Google Scholar
  24. Kiese S, et al. Shaken, not stirred: mechanical stress testing of an IgG1 antibody. J Pharm Sci. 2008;97:4347–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kim S, Song J, Park S, Ham S, Paek K, Kang M, Chae Y, Seo H, Kim H-C, Flores M. Drifts in ADCC-related quality attributes of Herceptin: impact on development of a trastuzumab biosimilar. MAbs. 2017;9:704–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Liu H, May K. Disulfide bond structures of IgG molecules. MAbs. 2012;4(1):17–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Liu J, Eris T, Li C, Cao S, Kuhns S. Assessing analytical similarity of proposed Amgen biosimilar ABP 501 to adalimumab. BioDrugs. 2016;30:321–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rhiel GS, Chaffin WW. An investigation of the large-sample/small-sample approach to the one-sample test for a mean (sigma unknown). J Stat Educ. 1996;4(3). https://doi.org/10.1080/10691898.1996.11910515
  29. Rosenberg AS. Effects of protein aggregates: an immunologic perspective. AAPS J. 2006;8(3):E501–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schiestl M, Stangler T, Torella C, Cepeljnik T, Toll H, Grau R. Acceptable changes in quality attributes of glycosylated biopharmaceuticals. Nat Biotechnol. 2011;29:310–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schmidt AS. Forced degradation studies for biopharmaceuticals. BioPharm Int. 2016;29(7):54–7.Google Scholar
  32. Stangler T. What to control? CQAs and CPPs. 2011 BWP workshop on setting specifications, London, UK. September 9, 2011.Google Scholar
  33. Tamura K, et al. FcγR2A and 3A polymorphisms predict clinical outcome of trastuzumab in both neoadjuvant and metastatic settings in patients with HER2-positive breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2011;22:1302–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tsong Y, Dong X, Shen M. Development of statistical methods for analytical similarity assessment. J Biopharm Stat. 2015 Sep 15. https://doi.org/10.1080/10543406.2015.1092038. [Epub ahead of print].
  35. U.S. FDA. Guidance for industry: immunogenicity assessment for therapeutic protein products. August 2014.Google Scholar
  36. U.S. FDA. Guidance for industry: scientific considerations in demonstrating biosimilarity to a reference product. April 2015a.Google Scholar
  37. U.S. FDA. Guidance for industry: quality considerations in demonstrating biosimilarity of a therapeutic protein product to a reference product. April 2015b.Google Scholar
  38. U.S. FDA. Guidance for industry: clinical pharmacology data to support a demonstration of biosimilarity to a reference product. December 2016.Google Scholar
  39. U.S. FDA. Guidance for industry (draft): statistical approaches to evaluate analytical similarity (withdrawn June-2018). September 2017.Google Scholar
  40. U.S. FDA. Aranesp (BLA 103951), SUPPL-5374: label. Drugs@FDA: FDA approved drug products. [Online] [Cited: February 23, 2018.] https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2017/103951s5374lbl.pdf.
  41. U.S. FDA CDER. Quality review BLA761042 - GP2015 (etanercept), Sandoz. 2016.Google Scholar
  42. Varchetta S, Gibelli N, Oliviero B, Nardini E, Gennari R, Gatti G, Silva LS, Villani L, Tagliabue E, Ménard S, Costa A, Fagnoni F. Elements related to heterogeneity of antibody-dependent cell cytotoxicity in patients under trastuzumab therapy for primary operable breast cancer overexpressing HER2. Cancer Res. 2007;67:11991–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wang W, Ignatius AA, Thakkar SV. Impact of residual impurities and contaminants on protein stability. J Pharm Sci. 2014;103:1315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Zhong X, Somers W. Recent advances in glycosylation modifications in the context of therapeutic glycoproteins. [book auth.] Dr. Hon-Chiu Leung. Integrative proteomics. London: InTech Open Access; 2012.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Strategic Drug Development, IQVIAVilvoordeBelgium
  2. 2.Advisory Analytics, IQVIADurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations