Challenges in Bioanalytical Assays for Biosimilars
Xun Wang,LingSing Chen
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4155/bio.14.174
IF: 2.695
2014-01-01
Bioanalysis
Abstract:BioanalysisVol. 6, No. 16 EditorialFree AccessChallenges in bioanalytical assays for biosimilarsXun Wang & LingSing ChenXun WangAuthor for correspondence: E-mail Address: xun.wang@qps.comDepartment of Translational Medicine, QPS, LLC, 1 Innovation Way, Suite 200, Newark, DE 19711, USA & LingSing ChenDepartment of Translational Medicine, QPS, LLC, 1 Innovation Way, Suite 200, Newark, DE 19711, USAPublished Online:21 Oct 2014https://doi.org/10.4155/bio.14.174AboutSectionsPDF/EPUB ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail Keywords: analytical similaritybioanalyticalbiosimilarcomparabilityvalidationBiosimilars are the biological medicines that are to be 'similar', but not 'identical', to the existing reference biologics due to the complex nature of the biologics. For the same reason, it presents unique challenges during the development and validation of bioanalytical methods, for both PK and immunogenicity evaluations, to demonstrate the analytical similarity. Regulatory guidelines have been established in some categories for the biosimilar drug development from both the EMA and the US FDA [1–4]. In addition, the EMA had released a series of specific guidelines on the development of different types of biosimilars, such as recombinant erythropoietins, low-molecular-weight heparins, IFN-β and monoclonal antibodies [5–8]. However, there are few specific guidelines on the bioanalytical methods and validation of methods for biosimilar evaluation. In most cases, general guidance on bioanalytical method validation for drugs and biologics from the EMA and FDA are followed [9–11].In May 2014, the FDA released its draft guidance to address how to show biosimilarity using clinical pharmacological data [12]. This is the latest biosimilar guidance from the FDA following five other draft guidance documents since 2012. This draft guidance explains the importance and integrity "to use the appropriate bioanalytical methods to evaluate the PK and PD properties of a proposed biosimilar product and its reference product". It states that "three types of assays are of particular importance for biosimilar product development: ligand-binding assays, concentration and activity assays, and PD assays". Furthermore, "when a reference product is known to have the potential for immune-mediated toxicity, assay capable of detecting binding antibodies (and their neutralizing potential) should be developed…".The development and validation of bioanalytical methods, both PK and immunogenicity, have generally followed the guidance documents from the EMA and FDA, as well as some White Papers [13,14]. However, the key questions remain on how to address the analytical similarity between the reference and biosimilar products. Can one assay measure both biological drugs equivalently? If not, should two assays be developed for the reference and biosimilar drug products? In this case, how should the data be interpreted from the two assays? A previous editorial by Cai et al. had initiated discussion on these topics [15]. With recent recommendations from the AAPS biosimilar focus group and steady accumulations of real case experience, we will re-visit some of these questions here.PK assayDuring AAPS NBC 2013, the AAPS biosimilar focus group recommended a 'two-step, one-assay' approach to quantitatively measure both reference and biosimilar drug products, if analytical similarity can be established during method development and validation [16]. This approach has been widely accepted in the industry. The first step is to demonstrate the comparable analytical performance of the calibration standards (CS). Both reference and biosimilar are used to prepare CS and are compared over at least 2 days. The parallelism of the fitted curves was assessed by statistical analysis programs. In certain cases, two well fitted curves with small residuals can be statistically different (not parallel), although they are nearly superimposable graphically. Appropriate statistical evaluations and further evaluation of QCs should be considered here. Once the acceptable parallelism is established, either reference or biosimilar drug product can be used as the CS in subsequent method validation.The next step is to confirm the analytical similarity and address the potential quantification bias between two drug products. The QCs (LLOQ, LQC, MQC, HQC and ULOQ) were prepared from both reference and biosimilar drug products and compared side by side over at least six precision and accuracy tests. Each type of QC has to meet the typical acceptance criteria of %CV, %RE and total error. Furthermore, the difference of the interbatch mean %RE (≤20 or 25% at LLOQ and ULOQ) and 90% CI of this difference (±30 or 37.5% at LLOQ and ULOQ) were assessed. This is to ensure the one-assay approach not only measures the reference and biosimilar drug accurately, but also comparably (in contrast to the -20% RE and +20% RE scenarios). Once validated, either reference or biosimilar drug product can be used as the CS for future sample analysis. In our experience, however, the matrix selectivity (recovery) and stability tests are carried out with both drug products using single CS.Immunogenicity assayThe debate on either a 'one-assay' or 'two-assay' approach is still ongoing in the field. In the one-assay approach, either labeled reference or biosimilar drug product is used to detect both anti-reference and anti-biosimilar antibodies. This approach yields one screening cut point. However, it is common that the confirmatory cut points will be determined independently for both the reference and biosimilar drug products. The drug tolerance is also assessed with both drug products. Furthermore, it is important to evaluate both anti-reference and anti-biosimilar positive control antibodies in order to demonstrate that the single assay can detect both types of anti-drug antibodies. Prior to the validation, both reference and biosimilar drug products should be labeled and compared in the assay to show that either labeled drug behaves similarly in the assay.In the two-assay approach, two independent assays were developed using labeled reference and biosimilar drug products for their respective assays. In most cases, different screening cut points will be obtained. To minimize the technical variations, many steps should be performed in parallel that include drug products labeling, screening/confirmatory assays and drug-tolerance tests. At early stage of assay development, the anti-biosimilar drug antibody is often not available. The same anti-reference antibody can be used as the positive control for both assays. It not only demonstrates that an anti-biosimilar drug antibody assay can detect the anti-reference antibody, but also serves as the indicator to show both assays are not significantly different in measuring the same antibody. However, it is equally important to crosscheck an anti-biosimilar drug antibody when it is available to confirm that both assays can detect anti-biosimilar drug antibodies equivalently.The above discussions are most relevant for the assays to detect binding of anti-drug antibodies. There are relatively few discussions on the neutralizing antibody (Nab) detection assays with the respect to biosimilar methods. For the ligand-binding-based Nab assay, it may follow the general considerations of what is discussed above. For a cell-based Nab assay, one can evaluate the feasibility of one-assay using similar concepts as outlined for the PK methods. The drugs, and Nabs response curves to the drugs, can be compared to assess the drug similarities. The tests can easily get complicated very quickly. More real-case experiences and discussions are needed in this area to derive better strategies.The advantage of a one-assay approach is mainly at the sample analysis stage, particularly for a blinded clinical study. All samples can be analyzed by one screening assay before being assessed by confirmatory assay. This can reduce complexity of data interpretation and cost of the sample analysis. The common concerns are that the biosimilar drug may elicit different immune responses due to the potentially different impurities and post-translational modifications from the reference drug. The one-assay approach may not be able to detect anti-reference drug antibody if labeled biosimilar drug is used, and vice versa. By contrast, this is exactly the advantage of the two-assay approach, which allows for maximum chances to detect both anti-reference and anti-biosimilar drug antibodies. To this end, each type of sample will be analyzed with respective assays. Often the confirmed positive samples will be further evaluated with the other assay to demonstrate the crossreactivity of the antibodies to both reference and biosimilar drugs.ConclusionThe bioanalytical methods for biosimilar product development demand more considerations and planning, including the supply of the drugs and anti-drug antibodies, before and during the method development and validation. Depending on where the regulatory approval is targeted, EU versus USA, different manufacture lots of the reference standard should be determined from the beginning. The key aspect is how to demonstrate the analytical similarity between the reference and biosimilar drugs. In PK methods, both the calibration standards and QCs from reference and biosimilar drugs are compared using experimental and statistical assessments for their parallelism and differences. The one-assay approach can be adapted only if the analytical similarity is established. In immunogenicity assays, the performances of the labeled drugs and cross reactivity of anti-drug antibodies are the critical factors to evaluate during the early method development stage before the decisions on the final approach. With the expected White Papers from AAPS focus groups and experiences accumulated from the recent intense efforts in biosimilar product development in the industry, the expectations and requirements for the biosimilar bioanalytical methods will become clear and better defined.Financial & competing interests disclosureThe authors have no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.References1 EMA, Committee for Medical Products for Human Use. Guideline on Similar Biological Medicinal Products Containing Biotechnology-Derived Proteins as Active Substance: Quality Issues (2012).Google Scholar2 EMA, Committee for Medical Products for Human Use. Guideline on Similar Biological Medicinal Products Containing Biotechnology-Derived Proteins as Active Substance: Non-Clinical and Clinical Issues (2013).Google Scholar3 US Department of Health and Human Services, US FDA, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. Scientific Considerations in Demonstrating Biosimilarity to a Reference Product (Draft Guidance, 2012).Google Scholar4 US Department of Health and Human Services, US FDA, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. Quality Considerations in Demonstrating Biosimilarity to a Reference Protein Product (Draft Guidance, 2012).Google Scholar5 EMA, Committee for Medical Products for Human Use. Guideline on Non-Clinical and Clinical Development of Similar Biological Medicinal Products Containing Recombinant Erythropoietins (2010).Google Scholar6 EMA, Committee for Medical Products for Human Use. Guideline on Non-Clinical and Clinical Development of Similar Biological Medicinal Products Containing Low-Molecular-Weight-Heparins (2009).Google Scholar7 EMA, Committee for Medical Products for Human Use. Guideline on Similar Biological Medicinal Products Containing Interferon Beta (2013).Google Scholar8 EMA, Committee for Medical Products for Human Use. Guideline on Similar Biological Medicinal Products Containing Monoclonal Antibodies (2012).Google Scholar9 EMA, Committee for Medical Products for Human Use. Guideline on Bioanalytical Method Validation (2012).Google Scholar10 US Department of Health and Human Services, US FDA, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Center for Veterinary Medicine. Guideline on Bioanalytical Method Validation (Draft Guidance revision 1, 2013).Google Scholar11 US Department of Health and Human Services, US FDA, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. Assay Development for Immunogenicity Testing of Therapeutic Proteins (Draft Guidance, 2009).Google Scholar12 US Department of Health and Human Services, US FDA, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. Clinical Pharmacology Data to Support a Demonstration of Biosimilarity to a Reference Product (Draft Guidance, 2014).Google Scholar13 Shankar G, Devanarayan V, Amaravadi L et al. Recommendations for the validation of immunoassays used for the detection of host antibodies against biotechnology products. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 48(5), 1267–1281 (2008).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar14 Gupta S, Indelicato SR, Devanarayan V et al. Recommendations for the validation of cell-based assay used for the detection of neutralizing antibody immune responses elicited against biological therapeutics. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 55(5), 878–888 (2011).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar15 Cai X-Y, Wake A, Gouty D. Analytical and bioanalytical assay challenges to support comparability studies for biosimilar drug development. Bioanalysis 5(5), 517–520 (2013).Link, CAS, Google Scholar16 Round Table Session. 'Recommendations from the LBABFG Biosimilars APC for the Validation of PK Assays in Support of Biosimilar Drug Development'. AAPS NBC, San Diego, CA, USA, 22 May 2013.Google ScholarFiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited ByPreparing Proteoforms of Therapeutic Proteins for Top-Down Mass Spectrometry15 July 2020Analysis of regulatory guidance on antidrug antibody testing for therapeutic protein productsNazneen Bano, Troy McKelvey, Nathan Spear, Tong-Yuan Yang, Gopi Shankar & Allen Schantz17 December 2019 | Bioanalysis, Vol. 11, No. 24Retrospective Analysis of Bioanalytical Method Validation Approaches in Biosimilar Biological Product Development11 September 2019 | The AAPS Journal, Vol. 21, No. 6Biosimilarity tetrahedron2 December 2015 Vol. 6, No. 16 Follow us on social media for the latest updates Metrics History Published online 21 October 2014 Published in print August 2014 Information© Future Science LtdKeywordsanalytical similaritybioanalyticalbiosimilarcomparabilityvalidationFinancial & competing interests disclosureThe authors have no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.PDF download