Advertisements
Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Amgen’


MDM2 inhibitor for the treatment of cancers

Larry H. Bernstein, MD, FCAP, Curator

LPBI

 

AM 7209

ANTHONY MELVIN CRASTO, PhD

 

AM 7209

STR1

Amgen Inc. INNOVATOR

MF 747.700043 g/mol, C37H41Cl2FN2O7S

cas 1623432-51-8

US8952036

 

p53 is a tumor suppressor and transcription factor that responds to cellular stress by activating the transcription of numerous genes involved in cell cycle arrest, apoptosis, senescence, and DNA repair. Unlike normal cells, which have infrequent cause for p53 activation, tumor cells are under constant cellular stress from various insults including hypoxia and pro-apoptotic oncogene activation. Thus, there is a strong selective advantage for inactivation of the p53 pathway in tumors, and it has been proposed that eliminating p53 function may be a prerequisite for tumor survival. In support of this notion, three groups of investigators have used mouse models to demonstrate that absence of p53 function is a continuous requirement for the maintenance of established tumors. When the investigators restored p53 function to tumors with inactivated p53, the tumors regressed.

p53 is inactivated by mutation and/or loss in 50% of solid tumors and 10% of liquid tumors. Other key members of the p53 pathway are also genetically or epigenetically altered in cancer. MDM2, an oncoprotein, inhibits p53 function, and it is activated by gene amplification at incidence rates that are reported to be as high as 10%. MDM2, in turn, is inhibited by another tumor suppressor, p14ARF. It has been suggested that alterations downstream of p53 may be responsible for at least partially inactivating the p53 pathway in p53WT tumors (p53 wildtype). In support of this concept, some p53WT tumors appear to exhibit reduced apoptotic capacity, although their capacity to undergo cell cycle arrest remains intact. One cancer treatment strategy involves the use of small molecules that bind MDM2 and neutralize its interaction with p53. MDM2 inhibits p53 activity by three mechanisms: 1) acting as an E3 ubiquitin ligase to promote p53 degradation; 2) binding to and blocking the p53 transcriptional activation domain; and 3) exporting p53 from the nucleus to the cytoplasm. All three of these mechanisms would be blocked by neutralizing the MDM2-p53 interaction. In particular, this therapeutic strategy could be applied to tumors that are p53WT, and studies with small molecule MDM2 inhibitors have yielded promising reductions in tumor growth both in vitro and in vivo. Further, in patients with p53-inactivated tumors, stabilization of wildtype p53 in normal tissues by MDM2 inhibition might allow selective protection of normal tissues from mitotic poisons.

The present invention relates to a compound capable of inhibiting the interaction between p53 and MDM2 and activating p53 downstream effector genes. As such, the compound of the present invention would be useful in the treatment of cancers, bacterial infections, viral infections, ulcers and inflammation. In particular, the compound of the present invention is useful to treat solid tumors such as: breast, colon, lung and prostate tumors; and liquid tumors such as lymphomas and leukemias. As used herein, MDM2 means a human MDM2 protein and p53 means a human p53 protein. It is noted that human MDM2 can also be referred to as HDM2 or hMDM2.

 

PATENT

US8952036

http://www.google.com/patents/US20140243372

 

Patent

WO 2015070224

Another particular MDM2 inhibitor is AM-7209 (Compound C herein), which is disclosed in U.S. provisional patent application number 61/770,901, filed February 28, 2013. (See Example No. 5 therein and below). AM-7209 has the following chemical name and structure: 4- (2-((3i?,5i?,65)-l-((5)-2-(tei’i-butylsulfonyl)-l-cyclopropylethyl)-6-(4-chloro-3-fluorophenyl)- 5-(3-chlorophenyl)-3-methyl-2-oxopiperidin-3-yl)acetamido)-2-methoxybenzoic acid

 

Discovery of AM-7209, a Potent and Selective 4-Amidobenzoic Acid Inhibitor of the MDM2–p53 Interaction

J. Med. Chem., 2014, 57 (24), pp 10499–10511    http://dx.doi.org:/10.1021/jm501550p
Abstract Image
Structure-based rational design and extensive structure–activity relationship studies led to the discovery of AMG 232 (1), a potent piperidinone inhibitor of the MDM2–p53 association, which is currently being evaluated in human clinical trials for the treatment of cancer. Further modifications of 1, including replacing the carboxylic acid with a 4-amidobenzoic acid, afforded AM-7209(25), featuring improved potency (KD from ITC competition was 38 pM, SJSA-1 EdU IC50 = 1.6 nM), remarkable pharmacokinetic properties, and in vivo antitumor activity in both the SJSA-1 osteosarcoma xenograft model (ED50 = 2.6 mg/kg QD) and the HCT-116 colorectal carcinoma xenograft model (ED50= 10 mg/kg QD). In addition, 25 possesses distinct mechanisms of elimination compared to 1
Yosup Rew, Principal Scientist,
Amgen

March 2013 – December 2014 (1 year 10 months)San Francisco Bay Area

Medicinal Chemistry (oncology)
1. Led optimization of small molecule inhibitors targeting protein-protein interactions in oncology programs
2. Discovered AM-7209, a back-up clinical candidate of AMG 232 featuring improved potency (KD from ITC competition = 38 pM), by replacing the carboxylic acid with an 4-amidobenzoic acid

Advertisements

Read Full Post »


Curator: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

For IP and Legal aspects of Biosimilars, go to:

Biosimilars: Intellectual Property Creation and Protection by Pioneer and by Biosimilar Manufacturers

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2012/07/30/biosimilars-intellectual-property-creation-and-protection-by-pioneer-and-by-biosimilar-manufacturers/

For CMC and Regulatory Affairs of Biosimilars, go to:

Biosimilars: CMC Issues and Regulatory Requirements

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2012/07/29/biosimilars-cmc-issues-and-regulatory-requirements/

The patent provisions of the Biosimilar Act, 2009 establish demanding and time-sensitive disclosure requirements. ObamaCare upheld by the Supreme Court is a victory for future development of pathways for biosimilar regulatory approval and eventually biosimilar generic drugs.

With the upheld ObamaCare, critical parts of the PPACA constitutional, and with it the BPCIA giving the FDA authority to approve biosimilars.

Had the PPACA been stricken in part or in its entirety, it would have presented obstacles to the BPCIA surviving in its present form. The US government has been critical of the 12-year data exclusivity period for Pioneer Innovators, calling for it to be shortened to 7 years (12 years is favorable to Pioneer Innovators and less favorable for Biosimilar manufacturers). The upheld ObamaCare, PPACA and BPCIA, constitutional, has prevented a multiyear delay in biosimilar approval. Thus, it was the best scenario for the biologics industry.

Thus, projection of Sales for Biosmilars as % of top 100 U.S. Pharmaceutical will receive a special meaning and an expected enhanced market share for 2012 year end and beyond 2012.

Biosimilars are occupying the Following ranking in the U.S. Pharmacuetical Sales – 2012: Top 100 Drugs for Q1 2012 by Sales: 10, 11, 12 13, 15, 24, 27, 29, 33, 35, 39, 57, 58, 62, 65, 70,  72, 74, 90, 98, 99. In addition the following biosimilars did not make the Top 100 list:

Biosimilar Drugs by US Sales – not included in the Top 100 Drug List 

Recombinate $2.9 1998 — Antihemophilic Factor VIII (Recombinant) by Baxter 5.7 Billion in 2012

Cerezyme $1.5 1994 —  Gaucher disease and Fabrazyme for Fabry disease by Genzyme 200 millions in sales

TYSABRI(R) (natalizumab) revenues were $280 million, in-line with the second quarter of 2011 by Elan and Biogen

NovoSeven $1.4 1999 —  Anti-fibrinolytics by Novo Nordisk – $1.5Billion

Synagis $1.3 1998 — Generic Name:  palivizumab     Anti-virals by AstraZeneca  $570 millions

Humulin $1.1 1992 Insulin Human by Eli Lilly $ 1.2 Billion

Kogenate FS $1.1 1993 — octocog alfa    Anti-fibrinolytics By Bayer $1.4 billion

U.S. Pharmacuetical Sales – 2012: Top 100 Drugs for Q1 2012 by Sales – Small Molecule Drugs (in green) and Biosimilars (in red)

The following is a list of the top 100 pharmaceutical drugs by retail sales in 2012, listed by U.S. sales value and drug name. Last updated: July 2012 (updated quarterly)

http://www.drugs.com/stats/top100/sales

Rank Drug

Sales ($000)

   
1 PlavixBristol-Myers Squibb Company

1,620,790

Stats

2 NexiumAstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals

1,395,981

Stats

3 AbilifyOtsuka Pharmaceutical Co.

1,340,200

Stats

4 SingulairMerck & Co., Inc.

1,238,134

Stats

5 SeroquelAstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals

1,161,141

Stats

6 Advair DiskusGlaxoSmithKline

1,139,182

Stats

7 CrestorAstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals

1,117,904

Stats

8 CymbaltaEli Lilly and Company

1,029,262

Stats

9 atorvastatinGeneric Drug

952,407

Stats

10 HumiraAbbott Laboratories

928,124

 

Stats

11 RemicadeCentocor Ortho Biotech, Inc

899,453

 

Stats

12 EnbrelAmgen Inc.

890,135

 

Stats

13 NeulastaAmgen Inc.

849,971

 

Stats

14 LipitorPfizer Inc

840,715

Stats

15 RituxanGenentech, Inc

756,875

 

Stats

16 CopaxoneTeva Pharmaceuticals

748,585

Stats

17 AtriplaGilead Sciences, Inc.

694,901

Stats

18 OxyContin

662,876

Stats

19 SpirivaBoehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc

659,818

Stats

20 AvastinGenentech, Inc

632,183

Stats

21 ActosTakeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc

630,970

Stats

22 JanuviaMerck & Co., Inc.

583,603

Stats

23 TruvadaGilead Sciences, Inc.

546,098

Stats

24 LantusSanofi-Aventis

520,584

Stats

25 DiovanNovartis Corporation

509,615

Stats

26 LexaproForest Pharmaceuticals, Inc

491,053

Stats

27 EpogenAmgen Inc.

489,570

 

Stats

28 LyricaPfizer Inc

458,171

Stats

29 Lantus SolostarSanofi-Aventis

448,388

 

Stats

30 enoxaparinGeneric Drug

442,263

Stats

31 EloxatinSanofi-Aventis

431,928

Stats

32 CelebrexPfizer Inc

430,993

Stats

33 HerceptinGenentech, Inc

425,687

 

Stats

34 Diovan HCTNovartis Corporation

415,475

Stats

35 LucentisGenentech, Inc

409,547

 

Stats

36 SynagisMedImmune, Inc

396,556

Stats

37 NamendaForest Pharmaceuticals, Inc

391,638

Stats

38 GleevecNovartis Corporation

391,072

Stats

39 AvonexBiogen Idec

388,623

 

Stats

40 VyvanseShire US Inc

387,167

Stats

41 olanzapineGeneric Drug

385,867

Stats

42 IncivekVertex Pharmaceuticals

371,349

Stats

43 One Touch Ultra

366,294

Stats

44 SuboxoneReckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals Inc.

338,840

Stats

45 methylphenidateGeneric Drug

337,211

Stats

46 ZetiaMerck & Co., Inc.

328,653

Stats

47 AndroGelAbbott Laboratories

311,850

Stats

48 ProvigilCephalon, Inc.

303,029

Stats

49 LidodermEndo Pharmaceuticals

301,354

Stats

50 TriCorAbbott Laboratories

298,834

Stats

51 SymbicortAstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals

290,669

Stats

52 CombiventBoehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc

285,487

Stats

53 ProAir HFATeva Pharmaceuticals

284,647

Stats

54 Seroquel XRAstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals

282,416

Stats

55 amphetamine/dextroamphetamineGeneric Drug

275,447

Stats

56 NasonexMerck & Co., Inc.

274,748

Stats

57 NovologNovo Nordisk Inc.

266,305

 

Stats

58 ProcritJanssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc

264,190

 

Stats

59 AlimtaEli Lilly and Company

263,024

Stats

60 ViagraPfizer Inc

260,678

Stats

61 GeodonPfizer Inc

260,514

Stats

62 Rebif

258,088

 

Stats

63 budesonideGeneric Drug

257,243

Stats

64 NiaspanAbbott Laboratories

255,383

Stats

65 HumalogEli Lilly and Company

244,587

 

Stats

66 Flovent HFAGlaxoSmithKline

241,552

Stats

67 LovazaGlaxoSmithKline

239,845

Stats

68 LevemirNovo Nordisk Inc.

239,576

Stats

69 Adderall XRShire US Inc

239,097

Stats

70 NeupogenAmgen Inc.

238,427

 

Stats

71 ReyatazBristol-Myers Squibb Company

238,151

Stats

72 AranespAmgen Inc.

231,643

 

Stats

73 metoprololGeneric Drug

231,395

Stats

74 NovoLog FlexPenNovo Nordisk Inc.

227,228

 

Stats

75 VytorinMerck & Co., Inc.

218,215

Stats

76 JanumetMerck & Co., Inc.

212,596

Stats

77 IsentressMerck & Co., Inc.

211,526

Stats

78 escitalopramGeneric Drug

210,171

Stats

79 CialisEli Lilly and Company

206,996

Stats

80 AciphexEisai Corporation

203,097

Stats

81 PradaxaBoehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc

201,065

Stats

82 SolodynMedicis Pharmaceutical Corporation

198,909

Stats

83 fentanylGeneric Drug

197,350

Stats

84 ZyprexaEli Lilly and Company

194,460

Stats

85 VelcadeTakeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc

188,583

Stats

86 RestasisAllergan, Inc

188,501

Stats

87 LunestaSunovion Pharmaceuticals Inc.

187,941

Stats

88 acetaminophen/hydrocodoneGeneric Drug

185,374

Stats

89 PrezistaJanssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc

182,859

Stats

90 PegasysGenentech, Inc

181,693

 

Stats

91 ZyvoxPfizer Inc

179,523

Stats

92 Prevnar 13Wyeth

179,085

Stats

93 LovenoxSanofi-Aventis

178,957

Stats

94 BenicarDaiichi Sankyo

174,619

Stats

95 VESIcareAstellas Pharma US

174,524

Stats

96 Ventolin HFAGlaxoSmithKline

172,707

Stats

97 OrenciaBristol-Myers Squibb Company

172,202

Stats

98 BetaseronBayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals

172,143

 

Stats

99 ErbituxBristol-Myers Squibb Company

171,513

 

Stats

100 DexilantTakeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc

171,179

Stats

Source: IMS Health (Midas).

Biosimilars Drugs by US Sales – not included in the Top 100 Drug List 

Recombinate $2.9 1998 — Antihemophilic Factor VIII (Recombinant) by Baxter 5.7 Billion in 2012

Cerezyme $1.5 1994 —  Gaucher disease and Fabrazyme for Fabry disease by Genzyme 200 millions in sales

TYSABRI(R) (natalizumab) revenues were $280 million, in-line with the second quarter of 2011 by Elan and Biogen

NovoSeven $1.4 1999 —  Anti-fibrinolytics by Novo Nordisk – $1.5Billion

Synagis $1.3 1998 — Generic Name:  palivizumab     Anti-virals by AstraZeneca  $570 millions

Humulin $1.1 1992 Insulin Human by Eli Lilly $ 1.2 Billion

Kogenate FS $1.1 1993 — octocog alfa    Anti-fibrinolytics By Bayer $1.4 billion

2011 US Sales vs. 2008 US Sales (in Billions) for Top Selling Biologics

Source for 2008 Sales

http://www.tbiweb.org/tbi/file_dir/TBI2009/Bao-lu%20Chen.pdf 

Source for 20011, Q1 2012 Sales

http://www.drugs.com/stats/top100/sales

Drug Name,  2008 Sales, Year approved , Indication

[i.e. Drug Name Enbrel,  2008 Sales $8.0B, Year approved 1998 , Indication RA]

Enbrel $8.0 1998 — RA, psoriatic arthritis, or ankylosing spondylitis indication

Q1 2012 12 (1) $890,135 1.92% 823 -4.63%
Q4 2011 11 (1) $873,343 1.67% 863 1.77%
Q3 2011 12 (1) $858,997 1.27% 848 -2.97%
Q2 2011 13 (2) $848,230 3.77% 874 3.19%
Q1 2011 11 $817,401 847

http://www.drugs.com/stats/enbrel

Remicade $7.9 1998 — RA & Chron’s Disease

Q1 2012 11 (2) $899,453 10.04% 1,556 10.04%
Q4 2011 13 (3) $817,365 -7.02% 1,414 -9.82%
Q3 2011 10 $879,054 1.52% 1,568 1.03%
Q2 2011 10 (2) $865,903 7.61% 1,552 7.11%
Q1 2011 12 $804,699 1,449

http://www.drugs.com/stats/remicade

Humira $7.3 2002  — treat rheumatoid arthritis, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, and plaque psoriasis

Q1 2012 10 $928,124 2.50% 546 -2.85%
Q4 2011 10 (1) $905,527 3.18% 562 2.55%
Q3 2011 11 (3) $877,641 3.95% 548 3.01%
Q2 2011 14 $844,296 6.32% 532 2.31%
Q1 2011 14 $794,076 520

http://www.drugs.com/stats/humira

Rituxan $7.3 1997 — cancer medicines to treat non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma or chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

Q1 2012 15 (1) $756,875 -1.91% 547 -0.91%
Q4 2011 14 (2) $771,622 6.96% 552 4.74%
Q3 2011 16 $721,408 -1.77% 527 -1.86%
Q2 2011 16 (4) $734,378 7.26% 537 5.09%
Q1 2011 20 $684,666

http://www.drugs.com/stats/rituxan

Second Quarter 2012 Highlights: RITUXAN(R) (rituximab) revenues from our unconsolidated joint business arrangement were $285 million for the quarter, an increase of 31% year-over-year. As previously disclosed, during the second quarter of 2011 our share of RITUXAN revenues from unconsolidated joint business was reduced by approximately $50 million to reflect our share of damages and interest that might be awarded in relation to an intermediate decision in Genentech, Inc.’s ongoing arbitration with Hoechst GmbH

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/correcting-and-replacing-biogen-idec-increases-revenue-18-to-14-billion-in-the-second-quarter-2012-07-24

Herceptin $5.7 1998 —  treat metastatic breast cancer that has progressed after treatment with other chemotherapy

Q1 2012 33 $425,687 -0.06% 155
Q4 2011 33 (2) $425,931 7.61% 155 4.73%
Q3 2011 31 (1) $395,804 -0.64% 148 -0.67%
Q2 2011 32 (4) $398,348 3.62% 149 1.36%
Q1 2011 36 $384,428 147

http://www.drugs.com/stats/herceptin

Lantus $5.1 2000 — long-acting form of the hormone insulin.

Q1 2012 29 (5) $448,388 9.81% 3,737 7.32%
Q4 2011 34 $408,336 8.54% 3,482 7.07%
Q3 2011 34 (2) $376,208 4.53% 3,252 6.00%
Q2 2011 36 (5) $359,907 7.80% 3,068 8.30%
Q1 2011 41 $333,878 2,833

http://www.drugs.com/stats/lantus-solostar

Epogen/Procrit $5.1 1989Anemia, low RBC

Worldwide, sales of the two drugs – sold under the brand names Epogen, Procrit and Aranesp – exceeded $9 billion in 2005 for Amgen and Johnson & Johnson, their makers.  Johnson & Johnson, which sells epoetin under the brand names Procrit in the United States and Eprex everywhere else, reported sales of $2.4 billion in the first nine months of 2006, down slightly from 2005.

Amgen Recalls Anemia Medications for Glass Fragments09/24/2010 – Drug-makers Amgen (AMGN) and Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) are voluntarily recalling two brandsof an injectable anemia medication because vials containing the drug may have tiny glass flakes. The drug, Epoetin alfa, is marketed under the brand names Epogen and Procrit.Known as lamellae, the glass fragments are created by the interaction of the drug with glass vials during storage, Amgen said in a statement announcing the recall. The recall is being conducted in cooperation with the Food and Drug Administration, Amgen said.

Latest study shows anemia drugs Epogen, Aranesp and Procrit cause strokes, says FDA

Posted on January 7, 2010

Anemia drugs sold by Amgen and Johnson & Johnson have been reported to cause strokes when prescribed in high doses, according to an article from the FDA, recently published in the The New England Journal of Medicine. The law firm of Aylstock, Witkin, Kreis & Overholtz is investigating the FDA’s recent announcement.

The FDA commentary said the latest study and previous studies “raise major concerns” about the use of these drugs to treat anemia caused by kidney disease. The drugs are also used to treat anemia caused by chemotherapy. Studies over the past several years have revealed a link between the drugs and heart attacks, strokes, and other problems.

Amgen’s anemia drugs include Epogen and Aranesp. Johnson & Johnson sells anemia drug Procrit, which is produced by Amgen. The drugs are designed to raise red blood cell levels, to promote delivery of oxygen to body tissues.

http://www.awkolaw.com/news/heart-attacks/anemia-drugs-epogen-aranesp-procrit-cause-strokes-says-fda/

Epogen / Procrit / Aranesp: The July 2012 News Report Which Tells Story Of Big Pharma Profits Over Patient Safety And Drug Efficacy

Once The FDA Started Paying Attention The Writing On The Wall Became Apparent, Albeit Too Late For Some

(Posted by  at DrugInjuryWatch.com)

This lengthy and well-presented news report, “Anemia drugs made billions, but at what cost?”, written by Peter Whoriskey and published July 19, 2012 by The Washington Post (free registration required), is a must-read for anyone with a concern or interest in how larger pharmaceutical companies might put corporate profits ahead of patient safety and drug efficacy.

Here is an excerpt from this Washington Post article which will give you a sense of what went on that, in hindsight, is so disturbing:

For years, a trio of anemia drugs known as Epogen, Procrit and Aranesp ranked among the best-selling prescription drugs in the United States, generating more than $8 billion a year for two companies, Amgen and Johnson & Johnson. Even compared with other pharmaceutical successes, they were superstars. For several years, Epogen ranked as the single costliest medicine under Medicare: U.S. taxpayers put up as much as $3 billion a year for the drugs.

The trouble, as a growing body of research has shown, is that for about two decades, the benefits of the drug — including “life satisfaction and happiness” according to the FDA-approved label — were wildly overstated, and potentially lethal side effects, such as cancer and strokes, were overlooked.

Last year, Medicare researchers issued an 84-page study declaring that among most kidney patients, the original and largest market for the drugs, there was no solid evidence that they made people feel better, improved their survival or had any “clinical benefit” besides elevating a statistic for red blood cell count.

As for some of the key events which led up to this revelation of sorts, we start with a June 24, 2011 FDA press release, “FDA modifies dosing recommendations for Erythropoiesis-Stimulating Agents — Cites increased risk of cardiovascular events when used to treat chronic kidney disease”, which included the following:

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today recommended more conservative dosing guidelines for Erythropoiesis-Stimulating Agents (ESAs) when used to treat anemia in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) because of the increased risks of cardiovascular events such as stroke, thrombosis, and death….

Procrit —  (epoetin alfa) is a man-made form of a protein that helps your body produce red blood cells

Q1 2012 58 (3) $264,190 -2.13% 295 -4.22%
Q4 2011 55 (2) $269,937 3.58% 308 3.01%
Q3 2011 53 (12) $260,610 -21.61% 299 -21.32%
Q2 2011 41 (7) $332,466 7.04% 380 5.56%
Q1 2011 48 $310,606 360

http://www.drugs.com/stats/procrit

Epogen —  (epoetin alfa) is a man-made form of a protein that helps your body produce red blood cells

Q1 2012 27 (7) $489,570 -24.54% 555 -17.04%
Q4 2011 20 (2) $648,794 4.67% 669 3.40%
Q3 2011 22 (2) $619,828 -13.96% 647 -18.41%
Q2 2011 20 (1) $720,376 3.32% 793 4.48%
Q1 2011 19 $697,224 759

http://www.drugs.com/stats/epogen

Neulasta $4.2 2002 — used to prevent neutropenia, a lack of certain white blood cells caused by receiving chemotherapy. stimulates the bone marrow and promotes the growth of white blood cells called neutrophils

Q1 2012 13 (1) $849,971 3.33% 331 1.53%
Q4 2011 12 (2) $822,578 4.59% 326 3.49%
Q3 2011 14 (1) $786,464 -3.86% 315 -5.69%
Q2 2011 15 $818,068 4.04% 334 3.41%
Q1 2011 15 $786,288 323

http://www.drugs.com/stats/neulasta

Novolog $3.7 2000 —  Insulin aspart is a fast-acting form of insulin. NovoLog is used to treat type 1 (insulin-dependent) diabetes in adults and children who are at least 2 years old. It is usually given together with a long-acting insulin.

Q1 2012 57 (6) $266,305 5.67% 2,980 3.72%
Q4 2011 63 (3) $252,015 0.97% 2,873 -0.48%
Q3 2011 60 (1) $249,591 -0.96% 2,887 -2.66%
Q2 2011 61 (5) $252,010 3.16% 2,966 -0.70%
Q1 2011 66 $244,297 2,987

http://www.drugs.com/stats/novolog

Erbitux $3.6 2004 — used to treat cancers of the colon and rectum. It is also used to treat head and neck cancer.

Q1 2012 99 (2) $171,513 2.30% 266 3.91%
Q4 2011 97 (7) $167,657 -0.15% 256 0.79%
Q3 2011 90 (3) $167,909 -2.48% 254 -1.93%
Q2 2011 93 (2) $172,185 -0.89% 259 -0.38%
Q1 2011 95 $173,735 260

http://www.drugs.com/stats/erbitux

Aranesp $3.2 2001 — Anemia, low RBC,  (darbepoetin alfa) is a man-made form of a protein that helps your body produce red blood cells. 

Q1 2012 72 (6) $231,643 -5.86% 293 -7.86%
Q4 2011 66 (15) $246,056 -6.07% 318 -3.64%
Q3 2011 51 (3) $261,967 -10.25% 330 -11.29%
Q2 2011 48 (3) $291,873 -1.03% 372 -1.33%
Q1 2011 51 $294,912 377

http://www.drugs.com/stats/aranesp

The article reports on the decline of worldwide sales of Aranesp drug from Thousand Oaks, California-based Amgen Inc. as of the second quarter of 2007. According to Amgen, the 10% decrease of Aranesp worldwide sales was due to the reimbursement issues related to the anemia drug and the drop of U.S. demand for drug, in which the U.S. Aranesp reported sales in the second quarter of 2007 was only $578 million from $713 million in 2006.

http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/26375335/amgen-posts-lower-aranesp-sales

1/24/2011, Amgen boosts prices to offset Aranesp sales

Amgen is hiking prices to make up for the shrinking sales volume of its anemia drug Aranesp. Bloomberg reports that Amgen raised the price tag on Aranesp itself by 4.4 percent, but also marked up the white-blood-cell-boosting meds Neulasta and Neupogen by 2.9 percent.

http://www.fiercepharma.com/story/amgen-boosts-prices-offset-aranesp-sales/2011-01-24

Recombinate $2.9 1998 — Antihemophilic Factor VIII (Recombinant)

BioScience core franchises include: Hemophilia, Biotherapeutics, BioSurgery and Vaccines. BioScience products represent approximately 45 percent of Baxter’s annual sales, totaling $5.7 billion in 2010.

2007 Outlook – Sales within Baxter’s BioScience business totaled $1.2 billion, an increase of 18 percent from the same period last year. This growth was driven by record sales of ADVATE, Antihemophilic Factor (Recombinant), Plasma/Albumin Free Method (rAHF-PFM) for the treatment of hemophilia A, antibody therapy products, including GAMMAGARD LIQUID(TM) [Immune Globulin Intravenous (Human)] (IVIG) 10% Solution for the treatment of primary immunodeficiencies, specialty plasma therapeutics and biosurgery products. Medication Delivery sales increased 7 percent to $1.0 billion, with increased sales of infusion systems, intraveneous solutions and parenteral nutrition products, along with accelerated growth in the company’s drug delivery business. Renal sales increased 6 percent to $537 million reflecting accelerating gains in peritoneal dialysis patients globally.

Lucentis $2.7 2006 intraocular injection. (ranibizumab injection) is a recombinant humanized IgG1 kappa isotype monoclonal antibody fragment designed for intraocular use. Ranibizumab binds to and inhibits the biologic activity of human vascular endothelial growth factor A (VEGF-A).

Date Range Sales Rank Sales ($000) Units (000)
Q1 2012 35 (5) $409,547 -6.89% 224 -5.88%
Q4 2011 30 (2) $439,867 2.44% 238 2.59%
Q3 2011 28 (2) $429,393 1.13% 232 0.87%
Q2 2011 30 (3) $424,611 0.95% 230 1.32%
Q1 2011 33 $420,635 227

http://www.drugs.com/stats/lucentis

http://www.gene.com/gene/about/ir/historical/product-sales/lucentis.html

Lucentis brought in $1.7 billion for Roche last year, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.Alimera Sciences Inc. (ALIM), based in Alpharetta, Georgia, and Psivida Corp. (PSDV) also are developing a diabetic macular edema treatment known as Iluvien. The FDA has twice rejected Iluvien, most recently in November.

The FDA pooled results from two Roche clinical trials and found 39 percent of patients who used the 0.3 milligram dose were able to read three additional lines of letters on an eye chart after two years compared to 41 percent who had the same effect on the 0.5 milligram dose, according to an FDA staff report released July 24.

Genentech recommended approval of the 0.3 milligram dose in its application to the FDA since there isn’t evidence of additional benefit of the higher dose, Terence Hurley, a spokesman for the company, said in an e-mail.

Patients who received the monthly injection also were significantly more likely than those who received fake doses of the drug to achieve 20/40 vision, enough eyesight to drive.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-26/roche-s-lucentis-backed-by-fda-panel-for-diabetic-blindness-1-.html

Avonex $2.6 1996 —  Multiple Sclerosis, a form of protein called beta interferon that occurs naturally in the body. Interferons help the body fight viral infections. Avonex is used to treat patients with relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis to slow the accumulation of physical disability. This medication will not cure MS, it will only decrease the frequency of relapse symptoms.

Q1 2012 39 (1) $388,623 2.22% 130 -3.70%
Q4 2011 38 (5) $380,189 0.19% 135 -2.17%
Q3 2011 33 $379,457 -0.05% 138 -1.43%
Q2 2011 33 (4) $379,639 2.45% 140 -1.41%
Q1 2011 37 $370,570 142

http://www.drugs.com/stats/avonex

Second-quarter net income surged 34 percent to $386.8 million, or $1.61 a share, from $288 million, or $1.18, a year earlier, the Weston, Massachusetts-based company said today in a statement. Earnings excluding some items of $1.82 topped by 26 cents the average of 21 analysts’ estimates (BIIB) compiled by Bloomberg. Revenue beat estimates by about $90 million.

Biogen said profit this year is expected to be more than $6.20 a share, 5 cents higher than its May 1 forecast (BIIB). The company has been increasing sales of Avonex, Rituxan and Tysabri, another MS therapy, while developing new medicines to introduce to the market.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-07-24/biogen-second-quarter-profit-rises-as-avonex-sales-increase

AVONEX(R) (interferon beta-1a) revenues increased 16% year-over-year to $762 million.

Novolin $2.5 1991  —  Novolin R (insulin regular) is a short-acting form of human insulin, Diabetes, Type 1 Type 2

Date Range Sales Rank Sales ($000) Units (000)
Q1 2012 74 (2) $227,228 8.96% 2,489 13.81%
Q4 2011 76 (4) $208,552 10.19% 2,187 6.73%
Q3 2011 80 (6) $189,267 4.15% 2,049 4.92%
Q2 2011 86 (7) $181,733 3.71% 1,953 29.60%
Q1 2011 93 $175,235 1,507
http://www.drugs.com/stats/novolog-flexpen
Novo Nordisk launches iPhone app Posted 17th September 2010, 15:11:54
An iPhone app has been launched by Novo Nordisk in the US which lets healthcare staff check dosage guidelines for diabetes patients.

Novo Dose provides product-specific data for the company’s insulin analog agents Levemir (insulin detemir), NovoLog (insulin aspart) and NovoLog Mix (insulin aspart protamine/insulin aspart injectable).

Combined sales of the three medications increased by 24% last year, feeding a double-digit growth in Novo Nordisk sales and profits.

Novo Dose, the second diabetes app created by the industry, tells professionals when and how to dose the drugs, how to titrate and provides information on the blood glucose goals of patients.

Commenting on the new technology, Anup Kumar Sabharwal, an endocrinologist at the University of Miami Clinics’ Diabetes Research Institute, said: “This is where modern medicine is headed.”

Humalog $2.2 1996  Humalog is used to treat type 1 (insulin-dependent) diabetes in adults. Insulin lispro is a fast-acting form of insulin. It is usually given together with another long-acting insulin. It works by lowering levels of glucose in the blood. Humalog is also used together with oral (taken by mouth) medications to treat type 2 (non insulin-dependent) diabetes in adults.

Q1 2012 65 $244,587 -2.70% 2,570 -3.85%
Q4 2011 65 (2) $251,367 3.78% 2,673 2.81%
Q3 2011 63 (4) $242,208 -0.75% 2,600 -1.78%
Q2 2011 67 (5) $244,050 4.83% 2,647 1.15%
Q1 2011 72 $232,809 2,617

http://www.drugs.com/stats/humalog

Pegasys $2.0 2002 — (peginterferon alfa-2a) is made from human proteins that help the body fight viral infections. Pegasys is used to treat chronic hepatitis B or C. It is often used together with another medication called ribavirin (Copegus, Rebetol, RibaPak, Ribasphere, RibaTab).

Q1 2012 90 (1) $181,693 3.92% 87 3.57%
Q4 2011 91 () $174,833 84

http://www.drugs.com/stats/pegasys

Rebif $1.7 2002 — (interferon beta-1a) is a protein identical to one found in the body. Interferon beta-1a is made from human proteins. Interferons help the body fight viral infections. Rebif is used to treat relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS). This medication will not cure MS, it will only decrease the frequency of relapse symptoms.

Q1 2012 62 (1) $258,088 -0.21% 540 -9.09%
Q4 2011 61 (7) $258,643 0.43% 594 -0.34%
Q3 2011 54 (5) $257,535 1.48% 596 -1.49%
Q2 2011 59 (2) $253,780 0.25% 605 -0.66%
Q1 2011 61 $253,143 609

http://www.drugs.com/stats/rebif

Cerezyme $1.5 1994 —  Gaucher disease and Fabrazyme for Fabry disease.

Last year Genzyme was forced to temporarily close its manufacturing plant in Boston due to a viral contamination. The interruption lead to shortages of two key drugs: Cerezyme for Gaucher disease and Fabrazyme for Fabry disease.

That crisis sent the company’s stock price plummeting from nearly $84 in 2008 to a low earlier this year of $45.39. Sanofi’s offer to acquire the company for $18.5 billion, or $69 a share — along with a 14 percent rise in the NYSE Arca Biotech Index since late July — have helped the shares rebound.

But Genzyme is now on a mission to prove to shareholders that it is worth more than Sanofi is offering, and executives told investors on a conference call that the third quarter marks the beginning of its financial turnaround.

Third-quarter sales of Cerezyme, the company’s top drug, rose to $179.8 million from $93.6 million a year earlier, beating analysts’ average forecast of $175 million.

“In the third quarter we saw our financial recovery start to take effect, and we expect that this will accelerate during the fourth quarter as Cerezyme patients are able to return to normal dosing levels and we begin to increase shipments of Fabrazyme,” Genzyme CEO Henri Termeer said in a statement.

Cerezyme is the principal drug for Gaucher patients. In the first quarter of 2012 Genzyme (now part of Sanofi (SNY))reported Cerezyme sales of 149 million euros (approx. $194 million), up 5.8% from the same quarter of the previous year. The other supplier Shire (SHPGY) reported $72 million in Vpriv sales, up 22%. There is now a third supplier, Pfizer (PFE), teamed up with the Israeli company Protalix Biotherapeutics (PLX), whose product was approved by the FDA in May 2012. Elelyso (taliglucerase alfa) is now available in the US.
Product Cerezyme
2009 2010 2011
 Total 793 720 885
 Ann. Growth Total -9% 23%

http://www.evaluatepharma.com/Universal/View.aspx?type=Entity&entityType=Product&lType=modData&id=15461&componentID=1002

Tysabri $1.4 2004 — Multiple Sclerosis by Elan and Biogen

Global in-market sales of TYSABRI in the second quarter of 2012 were $395 million, an increase of 2% over the second quarter of 2011. The total was comprised of $211 million in U.S. sales and $184 million in sales outside the U.S.

TYSABRI(R) (natalizumab) revenues were $280 million, in-line with the second quarter of 2011.
ITALIAN DISPUTE

Elan derives its revenue almost exclusively from Tysabri and it reported total sales for the three months to June 30 of $288 million, up 6 percent on a year ago once sales from its since-divested drug delivery business are omitted.

That compared to the $299 million forecast by four analysts surveyed by Reuters and was driven by in-market sales of Tysabri that rose 2 percent year-on-year to $395 million, also shy of the $419 million expected by analysts.

Biogen, which detailed the sales numbers when it reported second quarter results on Tuesday, attributed the softer-than-expected Tysabri sales to a dispute with the Italian government over pricing.

The number of patients on Tysabri rose 4 percent to 69,100, maintaining Elan and Biogen’s 10 to 12 percent share of the MS drug market in the face of competition from Swiss drugmaker Novartis AG’s Gilenya treatment, the first multiple sclerosis pill to come on the market.

The average addition of 185 new patients per week was the highest quarterly run-rate since the fourth quarter of 2009.

http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/07/25/elan-idINL6E8IP1VV20120725

NovoSeven $1.4 1999 —  Anti-fibrinolytics by Novo Nordisk —

Generic Name:   eptacog alfa
Product NovoSeven
2009 2010 2011
 Total 1,324 1,431 1,559
 Ann. Growth Total 8% 9%

http://www.evaluatepharma.com/Universal/View.aspx?type=Entity&entityType=Product&id=13483&lType=modData&componentID=1002

Synagis $1.3 1998 — Generic Name:  palivizumab     Anti-virals by AstraZeneca

Product Synagis
2009 2010 2011
 Total 1,042 906 570
 Ann. Growth Total -13% -37%

http://www.evaluatepharma.com/Universal/View.aspx?type=Entity&entityType=Product&lType=modData&id=91&componentID=1002

Neupogen $1.3 1991 —  (filgrastim) is a man-made form of a protein that stimulates the growth of whiteblood cells in your body. White blood cells help your body fight against infection. Neupogen is used to treat neutropenia, a lack of certain white blood cells caused by cancer,bone marrow transplant, receiving chemotherapy, or by other conditions.

Q1 2012 70 $238,427 0.06% 170 -2.86%
Q4 2011 70 (5) $238,289 0.16% 175 10.76%
Q3 2011 65 (5) $237,915 0.69% 158 0.64%
Q2 2011 70 (4) $236,294 2.51% 157 0.64%
Q1 2011 74 $230,515 156

http://www.drugs.com/stats/neupogen

Betaseron $1.2 1993 — (interferon) is made from human proteins. Interferons help the body fight viral infections. Betaseron is used to treat relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS). Betaseron will not cure MS, it will only decrease the frequency of relapse symptoms.

Q1 2012 98 (1) $172,143 2.93% 67 -10.67%
Q4 2011 99 (12) $167,236 -3.76% 75 -5.06%
Q3 2011 87 (2) $173,769 -2.89% 79 -2.47%
Q2 2011 89 (4) $178,938 -2.17% 81 -7.95%
Q1 2011 85 $182,908 88

http://www.drugs.com/stats/betaseron

Humulin $1.1 1992 Insulin Human by Eli Lilly 

Product Humulin R
2009 2010 2011
 Total 1,022 1,089 1,249
 Ann. Growth Total 7% 15%

http://www.evaluatepharma.com/Universal/View.aspx?type=Entity&entityType=Product&lType=modData&id=12399&componentID=1002

Kogenate FS $1.1 1993 — octocog alfa    Anti-fibrinolytics By Bayer

Product Kogenate
2009 2010 2011
 Total 1,238 1,332 1,496
 Ann. Growth Total 8% 12%

http://www.evaluatepharma.com/Universal/View.aspx?type=Entity&entityType=Product&lType=modData&id=11681&componentID=1002

Conclusion

Biosimilars are defined as biological products similar, but not identical, to the reference biological products that are submitted for separate marketing approval following patent expiration of the reference biological products. As one of the ICH members, the US needs to catch up with the EU and Japan as those two countries have already issued regulatory guidelines for biosimilars.

Once Congress establishes a legal framework, FDA is expected to set up a biosimilar approval pathway which will be similar to those in the EU and Japan and harmonized under ICH. The biosimilar will need a full CMC development package plus demonstration of comparable quality attributes and comparable efficacy and safety to the innovator’s product. Table 5 provides a comparison summary between small-molecule generics and biosimilars. It will take a much bigger effort to develop a biosimilar than a generic drug. Automatic substitution between the innovator product and a biosimilar is not appropriate as a biosimilar is not a generic version of the innovator product and is approved based on comparability to the innovator product.

REFERENCES

http://www.wolfgreenfield.com/files/2426_biosimilars_2_final_pdf.pdf

Read Full Post »


Biosimilars: CMC Issues and Regulatory Requirements

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

Updated on 6/30/2015

Biosimilars in the US: How much can we learn from Europe?

http://www.xcenda.com/Insights-Library/HTA-Quarterly-Archive-Insights-to-Bridge-Science-and-Policy/HTA-Quarterly-Spring-2015/Biosimilars-in-the-US-How-much-can-we-learn-from-Europe/#.VY-99uehlRA.mailto

Updated on 2/10/2014

Cambridge Healthtech    Institute’s Fifth  Annual Biotherapeutics Analytical Summit
Hyatt Regency    Baltimore | Baltimore,  MD | BiotherapeuticsAnalyticalSummit.com

<http://wec.chi-lifescience.com/t/20344782/1039908871/3650297/1006/>

The    Science and  Regulation of Process Changes for Biologics (Comparability)
Thursday,  March 27, 2014 | 5:30 – 8:30 PM | More Information 

http://wec.chi-lifescience.com/t/20344782/1039908871/4704449/1007/?fb8dc108=YXZpdmFsZXYtYXJpQGFsdW0uYmVya2VsZXkuZWR1&x=9c418447

Manufacturing changes can impact on quality     attributes of biologics, and may affect efficacy and/or safety of the product.   For that reason, a thorough comparability exercise is required, to assess the   impact of the change and whether CMC data alone will suffice to support the     change. This interactive short course will consider comparability exercises     during development, as well as post-approval, addressing regulatory and     technical requirements. This should provide the attendee with the knowledge on   how to prepare a comparability package for discussion with regulatory  agencies,   towards acceptance of the proposed change to the process/product.  Attendees   will  be contacted before the event and asked about topics on which  they would   like to  focus.

Topics covered     include:

  • Ways that manufacturing changes can impact    on quality attributes
  • Features of a thorough comparability exercise
  • Critical evaluation of quality data
  • The comparability exercise during development
  • Post-approval comparability, ICH Q5E, Comparability Protocols (US) and Change Management Protocols (EU)
  • Regulatory requirements in the EU and US: guidelines, their interpretation and application
  • Discussion with Q&A


Course    Instructors:
       
Christopher J. Holloway, Ph.D., Group     Director, Regulatory Affairs &  CSO, ERA Consulting Group        
Kazumi Kobayashi, Ph.D., Director, Bioprocess Development, Biogen Idec,    Inc.       
Marjorie Shapiro, Ph.D., Chief, Laboratory of Molecular and Developmental  Immunology, Division of Monoclonal Antibodies,            FDA/CDER
 

Comparability and Developability conference program at Biotherapeutics Analytical Summit.

The third track of the Biotherapeutics Analytical    Summit focuses on the practical application of analytical characterization for    Comparability, Biosimilarity and Development purposes. It covers case studies    with a variety of products and a range of analytical technologies. We have    invited the FDA and regulatory experts to advise and to discuss regulatory    challenges being experienced by the industry. This conference also covers the    link between the process and analytical technologies for innovator products and   for biosimilars.

BiotherapeuticsAnalyticalSummit.com/Comparability

http://wec.chi-lifescience.com/t/20344782/1039908871/4665296/1009/?fb8dc108=YXZpdmFsZXYtYXJpQGFsdW0uYmVya2VsZXkuZWR1&x=833e704b>

SOURCE

From: Biotherapeutics Analytical Summit Short Course <lauran@healthtech.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 12:40:59 -0500
To: <avivalev-ari@alum.berkeley.edu>
Subject: The Science and Regulation of Process Changes for Biologics (Comparability)

Comparability: The Final Frontier of Protein Therapies

The rapid expansion of protein therapeutics has crossed into all major disease classes (cancer, metabolic disease, inflammatory disease, infectious disease, immune disorders, etc.).  Due to the lengthy learning curve and high cost of developing these complex products, the development of therapies has been traditionally limited to highly specialized companies.  As protein therapeutics become more mainstream, these products are finding new applications in disease treatment and commercial application beyond the range of the traditional biotech companies.  Unfortunately, the expansion of medical applications for these therapies is outpacing the rate of innovation in product development and, as a result, market availability is becoming constrained by the ability to characterize and control product characteristics.

The Future Opportunity:

The key to most effectively and efficiently developing a biopharmaceutical or biologic to marketing approval is to have a clear understanding of the unique properties of proteins and to use that knowledge to design appropriate manufacturing processes, preclinical pharmacology-toxicology and clinical programs.  It is essential in dealing with complex comparability issues related to the types of manufacturing processes or changes in manufacturing to understand the scientific reasons for requiring a demonstration of comparability and the relationships between bioanalytical differences or changes in a protein and potential alterations in protein functionality in terms of specificity, potency, pharmacological activity, pharmacokinetics, toxicity and ultimately clinical safety and efficacy.  This understanding requires in depth knowledge of protein chemistry, manufacturing processes, pharmacology, immunology and toxicology that comes with extensive training and experience.  The same scientific and regulatory expertise and experience that is required for a successful demonstration of comparability is also applicable to the development of a biosimilar. This type of experience and expertise should prove invaluable as the expansion in the area of protein therapies continues and the development of biosimilars grows in the coming years.

How to Get There from Here:

Product developers can begin today to capitalize on this opportunity.   A number of technology advancements are being explored that will enhance our understanding of relationships between process, product, and clinical safety and efficacy.   One must think through how to integrate the future product comparability into early stage product development.  For new product development, these issues will include more in-depth analysis of the product structure and relationship of various structural features to function andin vivo activity, increased knowledge about the effect of process conditions on the types and mix of final product variants, and careful choice of in vitro binding and functional assays that clearly relate to the proposed mechanism of action of the product and can often also be used as a potency assays.  New technologies are being developed for these assays, and appropriate in vitro functional assays as relates to pharmacological mechanism of action can be very useful for demonstrating comparability.

A careful determination of appropriate animal models of disease for demonstration of proof-of-concept pharmacology is also important early in development. Identification of appropriate biomarkers of efficacy or safety should also be examined in these early animal models for future use in clinical development as well as demonstration of comparability.  The discovery of appropriate biomarkers can sometimes be carried over to the clinic and used in clinical trials with the appropriate validation.  Finally, as the safety database for the various classes of biopharmaceuticals and biologics expands, the understanding of safety issues associated with each of these various product classes will make it easier to more efficiently demonstrate comparability as well as to develop biosimilar products.

For developers who are trying to bridge comparability on products that lack a complete process/product history due to legacy issues or as in the case for biosimilar development, companies must think about the pharmacology of the product as relates to the proposed indication of either the previous iteration of the product or the innovator product, depending on whether this is a comparability issue or development of a biosimilar. It is the pharmacological activity of a given protein product that determines the efficacy and to a great extent the toxicity of the product.   The pharmacological activity of a product is driven by protein structure, mix of product variants, binding kinetics, dose, dosing regimen, route of administration, and final product formulation, among others.

As the development of biopharmaceuticals and biologics continues to expand, more and more information accrues on potential safety issues related to each of the various product classes, and this information will also prove quite useful to demonstration of comparability and development of biosimilars.

Biologics Consulting Group can assist developers in designing and implementing each of their comparability programs with the greatest chance of rapid regulatory approval.  Our staff has both FDA and industry experience, with a track record of success in helping academic institutions, start-ups, and established biotech and pharma companies.  Our direct knowledge and contemporary experience with all possible regulatory pathways – and every associated nuance — and can provide the requisite preclinical, clinical, quality, analytical, and manufacturing support to increase your chances for success.

Contributors: T. CarrierD. BarngroverJ. JessopV. NarbutJ. HumphriesB. FraserR. WolffN. RitterL. Winberry 

SOURCE

http://www.biologicsconsulting.com/perspectives/comparability-protein-therapies/

For IP and Legal aspects of Biosimilars, go to:

Biosimilars: Intellectual Property Creation and Protection by Pioneer and by Biosimilar Manufacturers

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2012/07/30/biosimilars-intellectual-property-creation-and-protection-by-pioneer-and-by-biosimilar-manufacturers/

For Financial Aspects of Biosimilars, go to:

Biosimilars: Financials 2012 vs. 2008

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2012/07/30/biosimilars-financials-2012-vs-2008/

Tr e n d s  i n  B i o / P h a r m a c e u t i c a l I n d u s t r y , 1 9 -26

Special Report on Biosimilars

About the Author: Dr. Bao-Lu has over 18 years of experience in product development, CMC regulatory, manufacturing management and quality oversight. He is currently the Director of Manufacturing and Process Development at Sangamo BioSciences. In this role, he oversees outsourced GMP production and testing of Sangamo’s gene therapy products and is responsible for the release and disposition of final drug product. He also provides CMC regulatory support and manages the in-house quality system by maintaining GMP database and implementing quality SOPs. Previously, Bao-Lu served as an Associate Director of Formulation at Xencor and Chiron and a Formulation Scientist at Amgen. Bao-Lu graduated with a BS degree from Fudan University and was selected as one of the forty chemistry students in the first year CGP Doering program. Bao-Lu earned his Ph.D. in Chemistry from University of Oregon and performed postdoctoral research in Biology at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

http://www.tbiweb.org/tbi/file_dir/TBI2009/Bao-lu%20Chen.pdf

CMC Issues and Regulatory Requirements for Biosimilars

Abstract

Chemistry, Manufacturing and Controls (CMC), preclinical and clinical are three critical pieces in biosimilars development. Unlike a small-molecule generic drug, which is approved based on “sameness” to the innovator’s drug; a biosimilar is approved based on high similarity to the original approved biologic drug. This is because biologics are large and complex molecules. Many functional-, safety- and efficacy-related characteristics of a biologic depend on its manufacturing process. A biosimilars manufacturer won’t be able to exactly replicate the innovator’s process. The traditional abbreviated pathway for generic drug approval through the Hatch- Waxman Act of 1984 doesn’t apply for biosimilars as drugs and biologics are regulated under different laws. New laws and regulations are needed for biosimilars approval in the US. The EU has issued biosimilars guidelines based on comparative testing against the reference biologic drug (the original approved biologic). A full scale CMC development is required including expression system, culture, purification, formulation, analytics and packaging. The manufacturing process needs to be developed and optimized using state-of-the-art technologies. Minor differences in structure and impurity profiles are acceptable but should be justified. Abbreviated clinical testing is required to evaluate surrogate markers for efficacy and demonstrate no immunogenic response to the product.

We anticipate the package for a biosimilars approval in the US will be similar to that in the EU and contain a full quality dossier with a comparability program including detailed product characterization comparison and reduced preclinical and clinical requirements.

Biosimilars Become Inevitable

 Biologics developed through biotechnology constitute an essential part of the pipeline for medicines available to patients today. Biologic drugs are quite expensive and many of them are top-selling medicines (see Table 1). Since they come at extremely high prices to consumers, some patients may not be able to afford the use of biologics as the best-available treatments to their conditions. The patent protection on a large number of biologics has expired since 2001. These off-patent biologics include Neupogen, Novolin, Protropin, Activase, Epogen or Procrit, Nutropin, Humatrope, Avonex, Intron A, and Humulin. Traditionally, when a drug patent expires, a generic drug will be quickly developed and marketed. Similarly, generic version of off-patent biologic drugs (also referred to biosimilars or follow-on biologics or biogenerics) represents an extraordinary opportunity to companies that want to seize the potentially great commercial rewards in this unexploited territory. Biosimilars not only benefit the biosimilar manufacturers but also can save patients, and insurance companies, substantial cost and allow patients to gain access to more affordable biologics resulting in market expansion. The government can use biosimilars to reduce healthcare costs. Therefore, development and marketing of bosimilars are supported by both manufacturers and consumers.

Differences between Generic Drugs and Biosimilars

Enacted in 1984, the US Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act, informally known as the “Hatch-Waxman Act of 1984” standardized US procedures for an abbreviated pathway for the approval of small-molecule generic drugs. The generic drug approval

is based on “sameness”. In comparison to the innovator’s drug, a generic drug is a product that has the same active ingredient, identical in dose, strength, route of administration, safety, efficacy, and intended use. For approval, the generic companies can go through the Abbreviated

New Drug Application (ANDA) process with reduced requirement in comparison to approval for a new drug entity. The generic drugs need to show bioequivalence to the innovator drugs typically based on pharmacokinetic parameters such as the rate of absorption or bioavailability in 24 to 36 healthy volunteers. No large clinical trials for safety and efficacy are required. The generic companies can rely on the FDA’s previous findings of safety and effectiveness of the innovator’s drugs.

However, the abbreviated pathway for generic drugs legally doesn’t apply to biologics as small-molecule drugs and biologics are regulated under different laws and approved through different pathways in the US (Table 2). Small-molecule drugs are regulated under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FD&C) and require submission of a New Drug Application (NDA) to FDA for drug review and approval. Biologics are regulated under the Public Health Service Act (PHS) and require submission of a Biologic License Application (BLA) to FDA for review and approval. The Hatch-Waxman Act of 1984 doesn’t apply for biosimilars. New laws are needed to establish a pathway for biosimilar approval.

There are some crucial differences between biologics and small-molecule drugs (Table 3). Small-molecule drugs are made from chemical synthesis. They are not sensitive to process changes. The final product of a small-molecule drug can be fully characterized. The developmentand production of generic drugs are relatively straightforward. Biologics are made from living organisms so that its functional-, efficacy- and safety-related properties depend on its manufacturing and processing conditions. They are sensitive to process changes. Even minor modifications of the manufacturing process can cause variations in important properties of a biological product. Thus it is believed that a biologic product is defined by its manufacturing process. Biologics are 100- or 1,000-fold larger than small-molecule drugs, possess sophisticated three-dimensional structures, and contain mixtures of protein isoforms. A biological product is a heterogeneous mixture and the current analytical methods cannot characterize these complex molecules sufficiently to confirm structural equivalence with the reference biologics.

Laws and Regulatory Pathways for Drug Approval in the US

Law/Application           Small-molecule            Drug Biologics                     

Law                     Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FD&C)             Public Health Service Act (PHS)

Drug application                 New Drug Application (NDA)   Biologic License Application (BLA)

Generic application   Abbreviated New Drug   Application(ANDA)   No pathway yet

 Immunogenicity Poses a Concern

One of the major complications that biologics can produce is immunogenicity as therapeutic proteins are inherently immunogenic [2]. Immunogenicity is related to biologics structure and formulation and is dependent on dose, route of administration and frequency of administration.

Clinical implications of immunogenicity are not always predictable. Formation of antibodies can result in harmless clinical effect or produce significant adverse events or severe disease. Examples are provided below. The Eprex (Erythropoietin, EPO) has been marketed by Johnson & Johnson (J&J) in the European Union (EU) countries for 10 years with no noticeable

Differences between small-molecule drugs and biologics

Product characteristics

Small-molecule generics Small, simple molecule

(Molecular weight: 100-1,000 Da)

Biosimilars   Large, complex molecules, Higher order structures, Post-translational, modifications

(Molecular weight: 15,000-150,000 Da)

Production

Small-molecule generics Produced by chemical synthesis

Biosimilars  Produced in living organisms

Analytical testing

Small-molecule  Well-defined chemical structure, all its various components in the finished drug can be determined

Biosimilars  Heterogeneous mixture, difficult to characterize, some of the components of a finished biologic may be unknown

Process dependence

Small-molecule   Not sensitive to manufacturing process changes. The finished product can be analyzed to establish the sameness.

Biosimilars   Sensitive to minor changes in manufacturing process. The product is defined by the process

Identity and purity

Small-molecule Often meeting pharmacopeia or other standards of identity (e.g., minimums for purity and potency)

Biosimilars   Most have no pharmacopeia monographs

immunogenicity issues prior to 1998. When J&J made a change in the Eprex formulation by replacing human serum albumin (HAS) with polysobate 80 and glycine in response to the

request from European health authorities, some patients developed pure red-cell aplasia (PRCA), a severe form of anemia. Eprex induced antibodies neutralize all the exogenous rHuEPO and cross-react with endogenous erythropoietic proteins. As a result, serum EPO is undetectable

and erythropoiesis becomes ineffective. Upon investigation, J&J found that polysorbate 80 might have caused uncoated rubber stoppers in single-use Eprex syringes to leach plasticizers, which stimulated an immune response that resulted in PRCA. Replacing with Teflon coated stoppers resulted in 90% decrease in PRCA by 2003 [3,4]. The effect of neutralizing antibodies has not always resulted in serious clinical consequences. Three interferon beta products, Betaseron, Rebif and Avonex, are marketed by three different companies. These products induce neutralizing antibodies in multiple sclerosis patients from 5 to 50% after one year treatment. Although these antibodies might be associated with loss of efficacy of treatment resulting in some patients to withdraw from the treatment, it seems no other severe adverse effects were detected [5,6].

Regulatory Landscape

The US, the EU and Japan are the three cornerstonemembers of the International Conference on Harmonization (ICH), which intends to harmonize the regulatory requirements for drug or biologic approval in these three regions. With the other two members, the EU and Japan, already have established biosimilar approval procedures (see below), the US lags behind in the biosimilar race. There are no formal approval pathways for biosimilars in the US. Congress needs to establish a legal framework in order for FDA to develop guidelines. Legislation has been under discussion in Congress since 2007. The legislative debate is centered on patient safety and preserving incentives to innovate with introduction of biosimilars. Two bills introduced in March 2009 deserve attentions [7,8]. The Waxman bill (H.R. 1427) proposes 5 years of market exclusivity to the innovator companies and requires no clinical trials for biosimilar development. The Eshoo bill (H.R. 1548) proposes 12 years of market exclusivity to the innovator companies and requires clinical trials for biosimilar development. Obama administration appears to favor a 7-year market exclusivity [9]. Once a legal framework is established for biosimilars, the FDA will likely take a conservative approach using the comparability as an approval principle. Clinical proof of efficacy and safety will be required, probably in reduced scale.

In the EU, the European Medicines Agency (EMEA) issued regulatory guidelines for approving biosimilars in 2005 (Figure 1) [10-16]. These include two general guidelines for quality issues [11] and non-clinical and clinical issues [12] and four class-specific annexes for specific data requirements for Granulocyte-Colony Stimulating factor (G-CSF) [13], Insulin [14], Growth hormone [15] and Erythropoietin [16]. In addition, a concept paper on interferon alpha [17] is also available. So far, there are eleven biosimilar products which received market authorization in the EU and they are biosimilar versions of human growth hormone, Epoetin and filgrastim. It is estimated six to eight years on average for a biosimilar to be developed [18].

The EMEA treats a biosimilar medicine as a medicine which is similar to a biological medicine that has already been authorized (the “biological reference medicine”) in the EU, The active substance of a biosimilar medicine is similar to the one of the biological reference medicine.

A biosimilar and the biological reference medicine are used in general at the same dose to treat the same disease. A biosimilar and the biological reference medicine are not automatically interchangeable because biosimilar and biological reference medicine are only similar but not identical. A physician or a qualified healthcare professional should make the decision to treat a patient with a reference or a biosimilar medicine. Since the biosimilar may contain different inactive ingredients, the name, appearance and packaging of a biosimilar medicine differ to those of the biological reference medicine. In addition, a pharmacovigilance plan must be in place for post-marketing safety monitoring.

Japan’s Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare (MHLW) issued guidelines for follow-on proteins or biosimilars approval in March 2009. The first biosimilar, Sandoz’ growth hormone Somatropin, was approved in June 2009. The MHLW’s guidelines consider biosimilars drugs which are equivalent and homogeneous to the original biopharmaceuticals in terms of quality, efficacy and safety. Biosimilars are also requested to be developed with updated technologies and knowledge. Biosimilars need to demonstrate enough similarity to guarantee the safety and efficacy instead of absolute identity to the original biologics. Biosimilars’ regulatory approval applications will be categorized separately from conventional generic drugs. In general, the applications should be submitted, as the new drug applications, with data from clinical trials, manufacturing methods, long-term stability and information on overseas use. The MHLW will assess the data on absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion (ADME) on a case-by-case basis. The applications do not need to provide data on accessory pharmacology, safety pharmacology and genotoxicity.

Biosmilars are already thriving in Eastern Europe and Asia, where regulatory and intellectual property (IP) standards for biosimilars are more liberal. Biosimilars developed in these regions are primarily sold domestically. These markets are considered less controlled. The quality of the biosimilars may not be in full compliance with ICH guidelines although they are often developed through comparative quality testing and clinical trials against the biologics which are already approved in Western countries

CMC Development

The CMC requirements for biosimilars in the EU are those described in the ICH Common Technical Document (CTD) Quality Module 3 with supplemental information demonstrating comparability or similarity on quality attributes to the reference medicine product.

Since the US is a member of ICH and encourages submission using CTD format, once the legal framework for approving biosimilars is established in the US, the CMC development will be similar to those in the EU.

Biosimilar manufacturers will have no access to the manufacturing process and product specifications of the innovator’s products because these are proprietary knowledges. To develop a biosimilar, a biosimilar manufacturer will need to first identify a marketed biologic product to serve as the reference biologic product. Then a detailed characterization of the reference biologic product will be performed. The information obtained from the characterization of the reference biologic product will be utilized to direct the process development of the biosimilar product and comparative testing to demonstrate bioequivalence between the biosimilar product and the reference biologic product. A biosimilar will be manufactured from a completely new process, which may be based on different host/vector system with different process steps, facilities and equipment.

A flow chart for a typical work flow from production to drug use is shown in Figure 2. The CMC development starts with establishment of the expression system. A cell-line will be selected among bacterial, yeast and mammalian host strains and then the correct DNA sequence will be inserted. Elaborate cell-screening and selection methods are then used to establish a master cell bank. Extensive characterization on the master cell bank needs to be carried out to provide microbiological purity or sterility and identity [19].

Bulk protein production involves developing robust and scalable fermentation and purification processes. The goals for fermentation are to increase the expression level and efficiency without compromising the correct amino acid sequence and post translational modification. Achieving high expression requires optimizing culture medium and growth conditions, and efficient extraction and recovery procedures. Correct amino acid sequence and post translati0nal modification will need to be verified.

Cell Bank

Fermentation

Purification

Drug Substance

Formulation

Fill/finish

Drug Product

Shipment

Administration

Typical flow chart for a biologics from production to drug use, above

Solubilization and refolding of insoluble proteins are sometimes necessary for proteins which have tendency to aggregate under the processing condition. Differences in the cell bank and production processes may create impurities that are different from the innovator’s product. The purification process needs to remove impurities such as host-cell proteins, DNA, medium constituents, viruses and metabolic by-products as much as possible. It is important for biosimilar manufacturers to accept appropriate yield losses to achieve high purity, because any increase in yield at the expense of purity is unacceptable and can have clinical consequences.

The final product is produced by going through formulation, sterile filtration and fill/finish into the final containers. Selection of formulation components starts from basic buffer species for proper pH control and salt for isotonicity adjustment. Surfactants may be needed to prevent proteins from being absorbed onto container surface or water-air interface or other hydrophobic surfaces. Stabilizers are required to inhibit aggregation, oxidation, deamidation and other degradations. The container and closure system can be glass vials, rubber stoppers and aluminum seals or pre-filled syringes or IV bags. The container and closure integrity needs to be verified by sterility or dyeleak test.

Biologics are not pure substances. They are heterogeneous mixtures. Each batch of a biologic product for clinical or commercial use needs to be produced in compliance with current Good Manufacturing Practice (cGMP) and is typically tested by a panel of assays to ensure the product meets pre-defined specifications for quality, purity, potency, strength, identity and safety. The product purity is often measured by multiple assays, which measure different product related variants (biologically active) or product related impurities (biologically inactive). Biologics are parenteral drugs and filled into the final containers through the aseptic process so that microbiological control is critical. It is advisable to set up product specifications for a biosimilar within the variation of the reference biologic product. Product characterization can be performed on selected batches for primary sequence, high order structures, isoform profiles, heterogeneity, product variants and impurities and process impurity profiles. Physicochemical characterization tests include IEF, CE, HIC, LCMS, carbohydrate analysis, N & C terminal sequencing, amino acid analysis, analytical ultracentrifugation, CD and DSC [20,21]. Biologics are highly sensitive to environmental influences during storage, shipment and handling. Temperature excursion, movement, and exposure to UV light can lead to protein degradation. Product expiry needs to be based on the real time stability data. Stability program should also include accelerated or stress studies to gain insight of the degradation profiles. In-use stability studies are carried out to verify shipping conditions or handling procedures cause no detrimental effect to the drug product.

 Comparability Demonstration

 A comparability exercise based on the ICH guideline [22] needs to be performed to demonstrate that the biosimilar product and the reference biologic product have similar profiles with respect to product quality, safety, and efficacy. This is accomplished by comparative testing of the biosimilar product and the reference biologic product to demonstrate they have comparable molecular structure, in vitro and in vivo biological activities, pre-clinical safety and pharmacokinetics, and safety and efficacy in human patients. Comparison of quality attributes between the biosimilar and the reference biologic product employs physicochemical

Product release assays for biologics

Type                         Assays

Quality              Appearance, particulates, pH, osmolality

Purity                 SDS-PAGE, SEC-HPLC, IEX-HPLC, RP-HPLC

Potency             In vitro or in vivo bioactivity assays

Strength             Protein concentration by A280

Identity               Western blot, peptide mapping, isoelectric focusing

Safety                  Endotoxin, sterility, residual DNA, host cell proteins

and biological characterization. Comparability on physical properties, amino acid sequence, high order structures, post-translationally modified forms are evaluated by physicochemical tests. In vitro receptor-binding or cell-based (binding) assays or even the in vivo potency studies in animals need to be performed to demonstrate comparable activity despite they are often imprecise. Levels of product related impurities (aggregates, oxidized forms, deamidated forms) and process related impurities and contaminants (host cell proteins, residual genomic DNA, reagents, downstream impurities) need to be assessed and quantified. Stability profiles of the biosimilar product and the reference biologic product also need to be studies by placing the products under stressed conditions. The rate of degradation and degradation profiles (oxidation, deamidation, aggregation and other degradation reactions) will be compared. If unknown degradation species are detected, they need to be studied to determine if they affect safety and efficacy. If differences on product purities and stability profiles are present between the biosimilar product and the reference biologic product, these differences need to be justified using scientific knowledge or preclinical or clinical studies. Changes in the impurity profile should be justified as well.

The demonstration of comparability in quality attributes does not necessarily mean that the biosimilars and the reference biologics are identical, but that they are highly similar. In many cases, the relationship between specific quality attributes and safety and efficacy has not been fully established. For example, physicochemical characterization cannot easily predict immunogenicity and slight changes in manufacturing processes or product composition can give rise to unpredicted changes in safety and efficacy. Changes in bioavailability, pharmacokinetics, bioactivity bioactivity, and immunogenicity are the main risks associated with the manufacturing of biosimilars. In vivo studies should be designed to measure the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics relevant to clinical studies. Such in vivo studies should be designed to detect response differences between the biosimilar and the reference biologic not just responses per se. In vivo studies of the biosimilar’s safety in animals may be used to research any concerns into the safety of the biosimilar in human patients. Although extensive clinical testing is not necessary for biosimilars, some degree of clinical testing is needed to establish therapeutic comparability on efficacy and safety between the biosimilar and the reference biologic product [23,24]. This includes using surrogate markers of specific biologic activity as endpoints for demonstrating efficacy, and showing that patients didn’t develop immunogenic responses to the product. In general, the approval of biosimilars will be based on the demonstration of comparable efficacy and safety to an innovator reference product in a relevant patient population. Clinical data requirement for each individual product will be different and will be determined on a case-by-case basis.

Small-molecule Generics versus Biosimilars

 Small-molecule

  • Approval based on “sameness”

Biosimilars

  • Approval based on “high similarity”

Small-molecule

  • Replicate the innovator’s process and product and perform a bioavailability study demonstrating similar pharmacokinetic properties

Biosimilars

  • Full CMC development with comparative testing, conduct substantial clinical trials for efficacy and safety including immunogenicity

Small-molecule

  • Abbreviated registration procedures in Europe and US

Biosimilars

  • Regulatory pathway is defined in EU on “Comparability” status, no pathway yet in US under BLA

Small-molecule

  • Therapeutically equivalent, thus interchangeable

Biosimilars

  • Lack of automatic substitutability

Small-molecule

  • $1 to $5 million to develop

Biosimilars

  • $100-$200 million to develop

Small-molecule

  • Brand-to-generic competition

Biosimilars

  • Brand-to-Brand competition

Conclusion

The patent provisions of the Biosimilar Act, 2009 establish demanding and time-sensitive disclosure requirements. ObamaCare upheld by the Supreme Court is a victory for future development of pathways for biosimilar regulatory approvaland eventually biosimilar generic drugs.

Biosimilars are defined as biological products similar, but not identical, to the reference biological products that are submitted for separate marketing approval following patent expiration of the reference biological products. As one of the ICH members, the US needs to catch up with the EU and Japan as those two countries have already issued regulatory guidelines for biosimilars. 2009 and 2012 represent milestones in the regulatory provisions for biosimilars in the US.

Once Congress establishes a legal framework, FDA is expected to set up a biosimilar approval pathway which will be similar to those in the EU and Japan and harmonized under ICH. The biosimilar will need a full CMC development package plus demonstration of comparable quality attributes and comparable efficacy and safety to the innovator’s product. Table 5 provides a comparison summary between small-molecule generics and biosimilars. It will take a much bigger effort to develop a biosimilar than a generic drug. Automatic substitution between the innovator product and a biosimilar is not appropriate as a biosimilar is not a generic version of the innovator product and is approved based on comparability to the innovator product.

REFERENCES

1. Federal Trade Commission Report, June 2009.

2. Schellekens, H.; Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2002, 1: 457-462.

3. Van Regenmortel, M.H.V.; Boven, K. and F. Bader, BioPharm International, August 1, 2005, Vol 18, Issue 8.

4. Locatelli, F.; Del Vecchio, L. and P. Pozzoni, Peritoneal Dialysis International, 2007, 27(Supplement 2): S303-S307.

5. Hartung, H.P.; Munschauer, F. And Schellekens, H., Eur J. Neurol., 2005, 12, 588-601.

6. Malucchi, S. et al., Neurol. Sci., 2005, 26, suppl, 4:S213-S214.

7. Greb, E., Pharmaceutical technology, June 2009, pp. 36-42.

8. Del Buono, B.J., BioPharm International, July 2009, pp 46-53.

9. Usdin, S., Biocentury, July 20, 2009, 17(32): A1-A6.

10. “Guideline on Similar Biological Medicinal Products”, (Doc. Ref.: EMEA/CHMP/437/04, London, 30 October 2005).

11. “Guideline on Similar Biological Medicinal Products Containing Biotechnology-derived Proteins as Active Substance: Quality Issues”, (Doc. Ref.: EMEA/ CHMP/BWP/49348/2005, London, 22 February 2006).

12. “Guideline on Similar Biological Medicinal Products Containing Biotechnology-derived Proteins as Active Substance: Non-Clinical and Clinical Issues”, (Doc. Ref.: EMEA/CHMP/BMWP/42832/2005, London, 22 February 2006).

13. “Annex to Guideline on Similar Biological Medicinal Products Containing Biotechnology-derived Proteins as Active Substance: Non-Clinical and Clinical Issues – Guidance on Similar Medicinal Products Containing Recombinant Granulocyte-Colony Stimulating Factor”, (Doc. Ref.: EMEA/CHMP/ BMWP/31329/2005, London, 22 February 2006).

14. “Annex to Guideline on Similar Biological Medicinal Products Containing Biotechnology-derived Proteins as Active Substance: Non-Clinical and Clinical Issues – Guidance on Similar Medicinal Products Containing Recombinant Human Soluble Insulin”,(Doc. Ref.: EMEA/CHMP/BMWP/32775/2005, London, 22 February 2006).

15. “Annex to Guideline on Similar Biological Medicinal Products Containing Biotechnology-derived Proteins as Active Substance: Non-Clinical and Clinical Issues – Guidance on Similar Medicinal Products Containing Somatropin”, (Doc. Ref.: EMEA/ CHMP/BMWP/94528/2005, London, 22 February 2006).

16. “Annex to Guideline on Similar Biological Medicinal Products Containing Biotechnology-derived Proteins as Active Substance: Non-Clinical and Clinical Issues – Guidance on Similar Medicinal Products Containing Recombinant Erythropoietins”, (Doc. Ref.: EMEA/CHMP/BMWP/94526/2005 Corr., London, 22 February 2006).

17. “Annex to Guideline on Similar Biological Medicinal Products Containing Biotechnology-derived Proteins as Active Substance: (Non) Clinical Issues – Concept paper on similar biological medicinal products containing recombinant alpha-interfero  (Doc. Ref.: CHMP/BMWP/7241/2006, London, 26 April 2006).

18. “EGA Handbook on Biosimilar Medicines”, European Generic Medicines Association, Received August 2009).

19. “Points to Consider in the Characterization of Cell Lines to Produce Biologicals”, FDA CBER, 1993.

20. Chirino, A.J. and A. Mire-Sluis, Nature Biotechnology, 2004, 22(11): 1383-1391.

21. Kendrick, B.S. et al., BioPharm International, 2009, August, pp 32-44.

22. “Comparability of Biotechnological/Biological Products Subject to Changes in Their Manufacturing Process”, ICH Harmonized Tripartite Guideline Q5E, 18 November 2004.

23. Mellstedt, H.; Niederwieser, D. and H. Ludwig, Annals of Oncology, September 14, 2007, pp. 1-9.

24 Schellekens, H., NDT Plus, 2009, 2 [suppl 1]: i27- i36.

Read Full Post »