Can next-generation antibodies offset biosimilar competition?

Asher Mullard

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd3749

IF: 112.288

2012-06-01

Nature Reviews Drug Discovery

Abstract:With the first biosimilar version of a monoclonal antibody now under regulatory review in the European Union, which R&D strategies are innovators relying on to counteract competition?

pharmacology & pharmacy,biotechnology & applied microbiology

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Sustaining competition for biosimilars on the pharmacy benefit: Use it or lose it

Stanton R Mehr

DOI: https://doi.org/10.18553/jmcp.2024.30.6.600

Abstract:Congress passed the Biologic Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, specifically to offer market competition as a counterweight to the rising costs of biologic medicines. As of April 15, 2024, 49 biosimilars have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 15 biologic categories. Biosimilar competition has been undeniably successful: Through 2022, biosimilars have saved the US health system $23.6 billion, without significant care disruption or reduced quality. Through 2023, adalimumab biosimilar competition has added an additional $6.5 billion to this total, primarily through greater rebates from the reference manufacturer. Despite launching at discounts as great as 85%, adalimumab biosimilars have not been given preferred formulary positioning in the vast majority of cases and have thus gained only 3% of market share through 2023, largely because of payers' and pharmacy benefit managers' preference for rebates over discounts. This situation may negatively influence future biosimilar development, posing a threat to a biosimilar pipeline that represents hundreds of billions in savings over the next 10 years.
An update on the adalimumab biosimilar landscape following the approval of the first high-concentration biosimilar

Enrico Fusaro,Patrick Durez,Johannes Wohlrab,Soohyun Lee,SangWook Yoon,Hubert Marotte

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2217/imt-2021-0271

2021-12-06

Immunotherapy

Abstract:Biosimilars can reduce healthcare costs and expand patient access to biologic therapies. Currently, eight adalimumab biosimilars have received regulatory approval from the EMA and/or the US FDA. Following recent EMA approval of the first high-concentration adalimumab biosimilar, CT-P17, this review provides a contemporary update on adalimumab biosimilars currently licensed in Europe and the USA. The totality of evidence from each clinical development program is summarized, and characteristics of each formulation and/or device that potentially affect the convenience of treatment for patients are discussed. Future perspectives are considered, including the potential impact of the FDA's first interchangeability designation for an adalimumab biosimilar, ahead of their entry into the US marketplace in 2023.
Why is there no biosimilar of Erbitux®?

Emmanuel Douez,Valentina D'Atri,Davy Guillarme,Daniel Antier,Mathieu Guerriaud,Alain Beck,Hervé Watier,Laura Foucault-Fruchard,Valentina D’Atri

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpba.2023.115544

IF: 3.571

2023-06-01

Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis

Abstract:Monoclonal antibody (mAb)-based therapies have been a major advance in oncology patient care, even though they represent a significant healthcare cost. Biosimilars, launched in Europe in 2004 are an economically attractive alternative to expensive originator biological drugs. They also increase the competitiveness of pharmaceutical development. This article focuses on the case of Erbitux® (cetuximab). This anti-EGFR (Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor) monoclonal antibody is indicated for metastatic colorectal cancer (2004) and squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (2006). However, despite the expiration of the patent in Europe in 2014 and estimated annual sales of 1.681 million US dollars in 2022, Erbitux® has not yet faced any approved biosimilar challenges in the United States or in Europe. Here, we outline the unique structural complexity of this antibody highlighted by advanced orthogonal analytical characterization strategies resulting in risks to demonstrate biosimilarity, which may explain the lack of Erbitux® biosimilars in the European and US markets to date. The development of Erbitux® biobetters are also discussed as alternative strategies to biosimilars. These biologics offer expected additional safety and potency benefits over the reference product but require a full pharmaceutical and clinical development as for New Molecular Entities.

pharmacology & pharmacy,chemistry, analytical
Patent Claim Scope and Biosimilar Competition in the US and EU

Doni Bloomfield,Aaron S Kesselheim

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/jme.2024.133

Abstract:The US has found it hard to establish competition in the market for biologics, which are therapeutics derived from living cells. In the case of small-molecule drugs, the emergence of direct competition from generic drugs at the end of the exclusivity period has provided the impetus for price competition, leading to lower spending. In 2010, to spur competition in the biologics market, Congress created a simplified pathway for the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to approve comparable versions of biologic drugs called biosimilars. Biosimilar competition in the US has nonetheless remained weaker than in European peer countries. For example, as of August 2020, there were 52 biosimilars available in Germany, and only 15 in the US.1 An important contributor to this "biosimilar gap" has been the fact that biosimilars to biologic blockbusters such as adalimumab (Humira) and etanercept (Enbrel) were only (or will only become) commercially available in the US several years after receiving FDA approval, while they were available in Europe years earlier.2 Through the end of 2021, it took biosimilars a median of 301 days between receiving FDA approval and becoming available for use.3 In one recent study, the median length of time between when a biologic drug was approved and when its first biosimilar was made available to US patients was 21.5 years.4 This paucity of competition has contributed to high US spending on biologics. According to the Department of Health and Human Services, in 2022 41% of US drug expenditures was spent on biologics, which represented 16% of US prescriptions.5.
Biopharmaceutical benchmarks 2018

Gary Walsh

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.4305

IF: 46.9

2018-12-01

Nature Biotechnology

Abstract:Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) continue to reign supreme, although cellular and gene therapies are slowly starting to gather momentum. Burgeoning growth in biosimilars may threaten future brand monopolies for mAbs and other biologics.

biotechnology & applied microbiology
Biosimilar competition in European markets of TNF-alpha inhibitors: a comparative analysis of pricing, market share and utilization trends

Elif Car,Arnold G. Vulto,Mark Van Houdenhoven,Isabelle Huys,Steven Simoens

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2023.1151764

IF: 5.6

2023-04-22

Frontiers in Pharmacology

Abstract:Background: Factors like the number of biosimilar competitors and competitive pricing strategies from originator companies may influence price competition and biosimilar uptake. Objective: The aim of this study was to analyze multiple facets of biosimilar competition of TNF-alpha inhibitors in Europe by exploring the existence of a biosimilar first-mover advantage, pricing strategies of originator companies, and the evolution in patient access. Methods: Sales and volume data on biosimilar and originator infliximab, etanercept, and adalimumab between 2008 and 2020 were provided by IQVIA. Countries included 24 European Union Member States, Norway, Switzerland, United Kingdom, Serbia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Sales value was expressed as ex-manufacturer price per defined daily dose (DDD), and volume data were transformed into the number of DDDs per 1,000 inhabitants per day. Descriptive analyses were conducted based on the evolution in price per DDD, trends in biosimilar and originator market shares and utilization trends. Results: Market entry of the first biosimilars of infliximab and adalimumab resulted in a decrease of the volume-weighted average price (VWAP) per DDD by 13.6% and 0.9% on average, whilst the second biosimilars resulted in a decrease by 26.4% and 27.3%, respectively. The first and second etanercept biosimilars generated a similar decrease in the VWAP per DDD by 9.3% and 9.1% on average, respectively. Average market share captured by the first biosimilars was at least twice as large as the second biosimilars for all molecules. In addition, sharp reductions in price per DDD of Humira ® in most countries indicated a pricing strategy resulting in low uptake of adalimumab biosimilars. Lastly, utilization of infliximab, etanercept, and adalimumab following biosimilar entry increased by an average of 88.9%, 14.6%, and 22.4%, respectively. However, introduction of (multiple) biosimilar competitors did not necessarily translate into increase in treatment access for all three molecules across some European countries indicating a shift in utilization from one molecule towards the other(s). Conclusion: Overall, this study revealed that biosimilar entry results in increased utilization and price reduction, although at a heterogenous rate among TNF-alpha inhibitors. Observed trends in market shares indicate a biosimilar first-mover advantage whereas pricing strategies considered to be anti-competitive can limit market uptake.

pharmacology & pharmacy
Antibodies to watch in 2024

Silvia Crescioli,Hélène Kaplon,Alicia Chenoweth,Lin Wang,Jyothsna Visweswaraiah,Janice M. Reichert

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/19420862.2023.2297450

2024-01-06

mAbs

Abstract:The 'Antibodies to Watch' article series provides an annual summary of commercially sponsored monoclonal antibody therapeutics currently in late-stage clinical development, regulatory review, and those recently granted a first approval in any country. In this installment, we discuss key details for 16 antibody therapeutics granted a first approval in 2023, as of November 17 (lecanemab (Leqembi), rozanolixizumab (RYSTIGGO), pozelimab (VEOPOZ), mirikizumab (Omvoh), talquetamab (Talvey), elranatamab (Elrexfio), epcoritamab (EPKINLY), glofitamab (COLUMVI), retifanlimab (Zynyz), concizumab (Alhemo), lebrikizumab (EBGLYSS), tafolecimab (SINTBILO), narlumosbart (Jinlitai), zuberitamab (Enrexib), adebrelimab (Arelili), and divozilimab (Ivlizi)). We briefly review 26 product candidates for which marketing applications are under consideration in at least one country or region, and 23 investigational antibody therapeutics that are forecast to enter regulatory review by the end of 2024 based on company disclosures. These nearly 50 product candidates include numerous innovative bispecific antibodies, such as odronextamab, ivonescimab, linvoseltamab, zenocutuzumab, and erfonrilimab, and antibody–drug conjugates, such as trastuzumab botidotin, patritumab deruxtecan, datopotamab deruxtecan, and MRG002, as well as a mixture of two immunocytokines (bifikafusp alfa and onfekafusp alfa). We also discuss clinical phase transition and overall approval success rates for antibody therapeutics, which are crucial to the biopharmaceutical industry because these rates inform decisions about resource allocation. Our analyses indicate that these molecules have approval success rates in the range of 14–32%, with higher rates associated with antibodies developed for non-cancer indications. Overall, our data suggest that antibody therapeutic development efforts by the biopharmaceutical industry are robust and increasingly successful.

medicine, research & experimental
A comparative study of the developability of full-length antibodies, fragments, and bispecific formats reveals higher stability risks for engineered constructs

Itzel Condado-Morales Fabian Dingfelder Isabel Waibel Oliver M. Turnbull Bhargav Patel Zheng Cao Jais Rose Bjelke Susanne Nedergaard Grell Anja Bennet Alissa M. Hummer Matthew I. J. Raybould Charlotte M. Deane Thomas Egebjerg Nikolai Lorenzen Paolo Arosio a Department of Biophysics and Injectable Formulation,Global Research Technologies,Novo Nordisk A/S,Måløv,Denmarkb Department of Chemistry and Applied Biosciences,Institute for Chemical and Bioengineering,Swiss Federal Institute of Technology,Zurich,Switzerlandc Department of Statistics,University of Oxford,Oxford,UKd Department of Bioanalysis,Beijing Novo Nordisk Pharmaceutical Science & Technology Co. Ltd (Novo Nordisk R&D China),Beijing,Chinae Department of Purification Technologies,Global Research Technologies,Novo Nordisk A/S,Måløv,Denmarkf Department of Kidney Biology,Global Research Technologies,Novo Nordisk A/S,Måløv,Denmarkg Department of Mammalian Expression,Global Research Technologies,Novo Nordisk A/S,Måløv,Denmark

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/19420862.2024.2403156

2024-10-05

mAbs

Abstract:Engineered antibody formats, such as antibody fragments and bispecifics, have the potential to offer improved therapeutic efficacy compared to traditional full-length monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). However, the translation of these non-natural molecules into successful therapeutics can be hampered by developability challenges. Here, we systematically analyzed 64 different antibody constructs targeting Tumor Necrosis Factor (TNF) which cover 8 distinct molecular format families, encompassing full-length antibodies, various types of single chain variable fragments, and bispecifics. We measured 15 biophysical properties related to activity, manufacturing, and stability, scoring variants with a flag-based risk approach and a recent in silico developability profiler. Our comparative assessment revealed that overall developability is higher for the natural full-length antibody format. Bispecific antibodies, antibodies with scFv fragments at the C-terminus of the light chain, and single-chain Fv antibody fragments (scFvs) have intermediate developability properties, while more complicated formats, such as scFv- scFv, bispecific mAbs with one Fab exchanged with a scFv, and diabody formats are collectively more challenging. In particular, our study highlights the propensity for fragmentation and aggregation, both in bulk and at interfaces, for many current engineered formats.

medicine, research & experimental
Antibodies to watch in 2016

Janice M Reichert

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/19420862.2015.1125583

mAbs

Abstract:The number of novel antibody therapeutics that received first marketing approvals in 2015 met expectations, with 6 (alirocumab (Praluent®), evolocumab (Repatha®), daratumumab (Darzalex®), dinutuximab (Unituxin®), idarucizumab (Praxbind®), mepolizumab (Nucala®)) granted first approvals as of mid-November*. Seven novel antibody therapeutics (begelomab, brodalumab, elotuzumab, ixekizumab, necitumumab, obiltoxaximab, reslizumab) are in regulatory review, and thus a similar number, if not more, are projected to gain first approvals in 2016. Commercial late-stage antibody therapeutics development exceeded expectations by increasing from 39 candidates in Phase 3 studies as of late 2014 to 53 as of late 2015. Of the 53 candidates, transitions to regulatory review by the end of 2016 are projected for 8 (atezolizumab, benralizumab, bimagrumab, durvalumab, inotuzumab ozogamicin, lebrikizumab, ocrelizumab, tremelimumab). Other "antibodies to watch" include 15 candidates (bavituximab, bococizumab, dupilumab, fasinumab, fulranumab, gevokizumab, guselkumab, ibalizumab, LY2951742, onartuzumab, REGN2222, roledumab, romosozumab, sirukumab, Xilonix) undergoing evaluation in Phase 3 studies that have estimated primary completion dates in 2016. As evidenced by the antibody therapeutics discussed in this perspective, the biopharmaceutical industry has a highly active late-stage clinical pipeline that may deliver numerous new products to the global market in the near future. *See Note added in proof for updates through December 31, 2015.
Overview of Humira® Biosimilars: Current European Landscape and Future Implications

Jill Coghlan,Hongliang He,Anna S Schwendeman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xphs.2021.02.003

Abstract:Humira® (adalimumab) by AbbVie has been the top-selling biologic drug product for the last few years - reaching nearly $20 billion in annual sales in 2018. Upon the October 2018 release of four adalimumab biosimilars into the European market, those sales began to shrink. By the end of 2019, the annual sales of Humira®, albeit still high, dipped closer to $19 billion as nearly 35% of European patients had been switched from Humira® to a biosimilar. Diminishing sales are expected to continue as the adoption of adalimumab biosimilars increases in Europe and Humira®'s patent protection is lost in the United States come 2023. In this review we discuss how impactful the availability of biosimilars has been to the European adalimumab market approximately two years after their release. We further analyze the marketed biosimilars with regards to differences in their formulation, delivery devices, biological activity, physicochemical properties, clinical trials data, and current financial foothold. More importantly, though, we highlight how "similar" these biosimilars are to Humira®. In doing so, we seek to educate the public on what they may be able to expect once adalimumab biosimilars enter the United States market in 2023.
New Horizons in Therapeutic Antibody Discovery: Opportunities and Challenges versus Small-Molecule Therapeutics

Alison J. Smith

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1087057114562544

IF: 3.341

2015-04-01

SLAS DISCOVERY

Abstract:Antibody drugs have become an increasingly significant component of the therapeutic landscape. Their success has been driven by some of their unique properties, in particular their very high specificity and selectivity, in contrast to the off-target liabilities of small molecules (SMs). Antibodies can bring additional functionality to the table with their ability to interact with the immune system, and this can be further manipulated with advances in antibody engineering. This review summarizes what antibody therapeutics have achieved to date and what opportunities and challenges lie ahead. The target landscape for large molecules (LMs) versus SMs and some of the challenges for antibody drug development are discussed. Effective penetration of membrane barriers and intracellular targeting is one challenge, particularly across the highly resistant blood-brain barrier. The expanding pipeline of antibody-drug conjugates offers the potential to combine SM and LM modalities in a variety of creative ways, and antibodies also offer exciting potential to build bi- and multispecific molecules. The ability to pursue more challenging targets can also be further exploited but highlights the need for earlier screening in functional cell-based assays. I discuss how this might be addressed given the practical constraints imposed by high-throughput screening sample type and process differences in antibody primary screening.

biochemical research methods,biotechnology & applied microbiology,chemistry, analytical
Antibodies to watch in 2015

Janice M Reichert

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4161/19420862.2015.988944

mAbs

Abstract:The commercial pipeline of recombinant antibody therapeutics is robust and dynamic. As of early December 2014, a total of 6 such products (vedolizumab, siltuximab, ramucirumab, pembrolizumab, nivolumab, blinatumomab) were granted first marketing approvals in 2014. As discussed in this perspective on antibodies in late-stage development, the outlook for additional approvals, potentially still in 2014 and certainly in 2015, is excellent as marketing applications for 7 antibody therapeutics (secukinumab, evolocumab, mepolizumab, dinutuximab, nivolumab, blinatumomab, necitumumab) are undergoing a first regulatory review in the EU or US. Of the 39 novel mAbs currently in Phase 3 studies, a marketing application for one (alirocumab) may be submitted in late 2014, and marketing application submissions for at least 4 (reslizumab, ixekizumab, ocrelizumab, obiltoxaximab) are expected in 2015. Other 'antibodies to watch' are those in Phase 3 studies with estimated primary completion dates in late 2014 or 2015, which includes 13 for non-cancer indications (brodalumab, bimagrumab, bococizumab, MABp1, gevokizumab, dupilumab, sirukumab, sarilumab, tildrakizumab, guselkumab, epratuzumab, combination of actoxumab + bezlotoxumab, romosozumab) and 2 (racotumomab and clivatuzumab tetraxetan) undergoing evaluation as treatments for cancer. In addition to the novel antibody therapeutics mentioned, biosimilar infliximab and biosimilar trastuzumab are 'antibodies to watch' in 2015 because of their potential for entry into the US market and regulatory review, respectively.
Introducing biosimilar competition for cell and gene therapy products

Brian Canter,Sabine Sussman,Stephen Colvill,Nitzan Arad,Elizabeth Staton,Arti Rai

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsae015

IF: 3.4

2024-07-01

Journal of Law and the Biosciences

Abstract:Abstract This article provides an early analysis of the potential for creating future biosimilar competition for cell and gene therapies (CGTs) to lower prices and improve patient access, building on a unique set of interviews with relevant experts. Our discussion addressed regulatory, manufacturing, intellectual property, and market size challenges. Due to CGTs' complexity, meeting the regulatory requirement of ‘high similarity with no clinically meaningful differences’ will be difficult. Gene therapies are likely better candidates for biosimilar development than cell therapies. Biosimilarity should be met when gene therapy biosimilars contain the same genetic sequence as a reference product, and the variability in the vector meets the high similarity standard. Manufacturing challenges, including the lack of standardized platforms, high production costs, and complexity, pose significant obstacles. It may also be important to demonstrate biosimilarity within the manufacturing process. Intellectual property barriers, specifically patenting, trade secrecy, and regulatory exclusivity, could hinder biosimilars' ability to gain market share, although recent Supreme Court decisions limiting the breadth of patent claims could ease barriers to future CGT competition, including from biosimilars. Finally, inadequate market sizes might create hurdles, especially for curative treatments, as patient pools shrink following treatment by the reference CGT.

ethics,law,medicine, legal,medical ethics
Comprehensive approaches to preclinical evaluation of monoclonal antibodies and their next-generation derivatives

Santanu Singh,Kajal Kachhawaha,Sumit K. Singh

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bcp.2024.116303

IF: 6.1

2024-05-26

Biochemical Pharmacology

Abstract:Biotherapeutics hold great promise for the treatment of severe diseases and offer innovative possibilities for new treatments that target previously unaddressed medical needs. Despite successful transitions from preclinical to clinical stages and regulatory approval, there are instances where adverse reactions arise, resulting in product withdrawals. As a result, it is essential to conduct thorough evaluations of safety and effectiveness on an individual basis. This article explores current practices, challenges, and future approaches in conducting comprehensive preclinical assessments to ensure the safety and efficacy of biotherapeutics including monoclonal antibodies, toxin-conjugates, bispecific antibodies, single-chain antibodies, Fc-engineered antibodies, antibody mimetics, and siRNA-antibody/peptide conjugates.

pharmacology & pharmacy
Antibodies to watch in 2020

Hélène Kaplon,Mrinalini Muralidharan,Zita Schneider,Janice M Reichert

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/19420862.2019.1703531

mAbs

Abstract:This 2020 installment of the annual 'Antibodies to Watch' series documents the antibody therapeutics approved in 2019 and in regulatory review in the United States or European Union, as well as those in late-stage clinical studies, as of November 2019*. At this time, a total of 5 novel antibody therapeutics (romosozumab, risankizumab, polatuzumab vedotin, brolucizumab, and crizanlizumab) had been granted a first approval in either the US or EU, and marketing applications for 13 novel antibody therapeutics (eptinezumab, teprotumumab, enfortumab vedotin, isatuximab, [fam-]trastuzumab deruxtecan, inebilizumab, leronlimab, sacituzumab govitecan, satralizumab, narsoplimab, tafasitamab, REGNEB3 and naxituximab) were undergoing review in these regions, which represent the major markets for antibody therapeutics. Also as of November 2019, 79 novel antibodies were undergoing evaluation in late-stage clinical studies. Of the 79 antibodies, 39 were undergoing evaluation in late-stage studies for non-cancer indications, with 2 of these (ublituximab, pamrevlumab) also in late-stage studies for cancer indications. Companies developing 7 (tanezumab, aducanumab, evinacumab, etrolizumab, sutimlimab, anifrolumab, and teplizumab) of the 39 drugs have indicated that they may submit a marketing application in either the US or EU in 2020. Of the 79 antibodies in late-stage studies, 40 were undergoing evaluation as treatments for cancer, and potentially 9 of these (belantamab mafodotin, oportuzumab monatox, margetuximab, dostarlimab, spartalizumab, 131I-omburtamab, loncastuximab tesirine, balstilimab, and zalifrelimab) may enter regulatory review in late 2019 or in 2020. Overall, the biopharmaceutical industry's clinical pipeline of antibody therapeutics is robust, and should provide a continuous supply of innovative products for patients in the future. *Note on key updates through December 18, 2019: 1) the US Food and Drug Administration granted accelerated approval to enfortumab vedotin-ejfv (Padcev) on December 18, 2019, bringing the total number of novel antibody therapeutics granted a first approval in either the US or EU during 2019 to 6; 2) the European Commission approved romosozumab on December 9, 2019; 3) the European Medicines Agency issued a positive opinion for brolucizumab; 4) Sesen Bio initiated a rolling biologics license application (BLA) on December 6, 2019; 5) GlaxoSmithKline submitted a BLA for belantamab mafodotin; and 6) the status of the Phase 3 study (NCT04128696) of GSK3359609, a humanized IgG4 anti-ICOS antibody, in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma was updated to recruiting from not yet recruiting.
The Current Landscape of Antibody-based Therapies in Solid Malignancies

Ashu Shah,Sanchita Rauth,Abhijit Aithal,Sukhwinder Kaur,Koelina Ganguly,Catherine Orzechowski,Grish C Varshney,Maneesh Jain,Surinder K Batra

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7150/thno.52614

IF: 11.6

2021-01-01

Theranostics

Abstract:Over the past three decades, monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) have revolutionized the landscape of cancer therapy. Still, this benefit remains restricted to a small proportion of patients due to moderate response rates and resistance emergence. The field has started to embrace better mAb-based formats with advancements in molecular and protein engineering technologies. The development of a therapeutic mAb with long-lasting clinical impact demands a prodigious understanding of target antigen, effective mechanism of action, gene engineering technologies, complex interplay between tumor and host immune system, and biomarkers for prediction of clinical response. This review discusses the various approaches used by mAbs for tumor targeting and mechanisms of therapeutic resistance that is not only caused by the heterogeneity of tumor antigen, but also the resistance imposed by tumor microenvironment (TME), including inefficient delivery to the tumor, alteration of effector functions in the TME, and Fc-gamma receptor expression diversity and polymorphism. Further, this article provides a perspective on potential strategies to overcome these barriers and how diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers are being used in predicting response to mAb-based therapies. Overall, understanding these interdependent parameters can improve the current mAb-based formulations and develop novel mAb-based therapeutics for achieving durable clinical outcomes in a large subset of patients.
Comparing Originator Biologics and Biosimilars: A Review of the Relevant Issues

Corrado Blandizzi,Pier Luigi Meroni,Giovanni Lapadula

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinthera.2017.03.014

Abstract:Purpose: We provide a review of current knowledge on comparability between biosimilars and originator biologics in view of the continuous evolution occurring in this highly dynamic area. Methods: English-language literature indexed in MEDLINE was explored, without time limits, to July 31, 2016, using the terms biosimilar, biotechnologic drug, biologic drug, monoclonal antibody, fusion protein, and anti-tumor necrosis factor. The reference lists of identified articles were examined carefully for additional pertinent publications. Findings: Biological medicines are much more structurally complex and extremely sensitive to manufacturing conditions and therefore more difficult to characterize and produce than small molecule drugs. Even minor changes in manufacturing may lead to significant variations of the cellular systems used for biological production, as well as to differences in the structure, stability, or other quality aspects of the end product, all of which have the potential to affect tolerability and/or efficacy and increase the risk of immune responses. Owing to these issues, specific regulatory guidance on biosimilars is continuously evolving, and there is some disagreement on which studies need to be implemented to approve a biosimilar. According to current literature, the following points on biosimilars deserve consideration: biosimilar development is characterized by global harmonization, although several not fully answered questions remain regarding extrapolation of indications, switching or interchangeability, and tolerability; in patients with rheumatic diseases, the tolerability and efficacy of biosimilars in clinical practice remain to be established; several medical and patient associations have published position papers on biosimilars requesting that safety, efficacy, and traceability be carefully considered; long-term postmarketing studies should be implemented to allow physicians to gain confidence in biosimilars. Implications: On the basis of current knowledge, and taking into consideration both regulatory rules and medical society positions, it can be concluded that, although cost savings are highly desirable, the approval process for biosimilars needs to place tolerability and efficacy, supported by scientifically sound evidence, as the highest priority. Moreover, physicians must retain full authority regarding the decision about which biopharmaceutical to use for treating patients.
Recent Advances in the Development of Monoclonal Antibodies and Next-Generation Antibodies

Rohit Singh,Pankaj Chandley,Soma Rohatgi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4049/immunohorizons.2300102

2023-12-01

ImmunoHorizons

Abstract:Abstract mAbs are highly indispensable tools for diagnostic, prophylactic, and therapeutic applications. The first technique, hybridoma technology, was based on fusion of B lymphocytes with myeloma cells, which resulted in generation of single mAbs against a specific Ag. Along with hybridoma technology, several novel and alternative methods have been developed to improve mAb generation, ranging from electrofusion to the discovery of completely novel technologies such as B cell immortalization; phage, yeast, bacterial, ribosome, and mammalian display systems; DNA/RNA encoded Abs; single B cell technology; transgenic animals; and artificial intelligence/machine learning. This commentary outlines the evolution, methodology, advantages, and limitations of various mAb production techniques. Furthermore, with the advent of next-generation Ab technologies such as single-chain variable fragments, nanobodies, bispecific Abs, Fc-engineered Abs, Ab biosimilars, Ab mimetics, and Ab-drug conjugates, the healthcare and pharmaceutical sectors have become resourceful to develop highly specific mAb treatments against various diseases such as cancer and autoimmune and infectious diseases.

English Else
Clinical Pharmacology Strategies for Bispecific Antibody Development: Learnings from FDA-Approved Bispecific Antibodies in Oncology

KyoungSoo Lim,Xu Sue Zhu,Diansong Zhou,Song Ren,Alex Phipps

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/cpt.3308

Abstract:Bispecific antibodies, by enabling the targeting of more than one disease-associated antigen or engaging immune effector cells, have both advantages and challenges compared with a combination of two different biological products. As of December 2023, there are 11 U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved BsAb products on the market. Among these, 9 have been approved for oncology indications, and 8 of these are CD3 T-cell engagers. Clinical pharmacology strategies, including dose-related strategies, are critical for bispecific antibody development. This analysis reviewed clinical studies of all approved bispecific antibodies in oncology and identified dose-related perspectives to support clinical dose optimization and regulatory approvals, particularly in the context of the Food and Drug Administration's Project Optimus: (1) starting doses and dose ranges in first-in-human studies; (2) dose strategies including step-up doses or full doses for recommended phase 2 doses or dose level(s) used for registrational intent; (3) restarting therapy after dose delay; (4) considerations for the introduction of subcutaneous doses; (5) body weight vs. flat dosing strategy; and (6) management of immunogenicity. The learnings arising from this review are intended to inform successful strategies for future bispecific antibody development.
Development and regulation of biosimilars: current status and future challenges

Asterios S Tsiftsoglou,Sol Ruiz,Christian K Schneider

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40259-013-0020-y

IF: 7.744

BioDrugs

Abstract:Biologic medicinal products developed via rDNA technology as recombinant protein-based medicines that have been in clinical use since the early 1980s as original biopharmaceuticals have greatly contributed to the therapy of severe metabolic and degenerative diseases. The recent expiration of the data protection or patents for most of them created opportunities for the development of copy versions of original biopharmaceuticals with similar biologic activity (termed biosimilars). Production of these new products is expected to meet worldwide demand, promote market competition, maintain the incentives for innovation, and sustain the healthcare systems. The licencing of these products, however, relies on the experience gained with the original biopharmaceuticals. Critical issues related to this class of medicinal products include their terminology (to avoid confusion with generics and non-innovator copy versions that have not been tested according to the biosimilar guidelines), manufacturing, and regulation. The European Union (EU) has been the first to establish a regulatory framework for marketing authorization application (MAA) and has named these products biosimilars, a term also recently adopted by the US FDA. Unlike the conventional, more common small molecular weight human medicines and chemical generics, protein-based medicines exhibit higher molecular weight, complexity in structure and function that can be affected by changes in the manufacturing process. Therefore, biosimilars represent a relatively heterogeneous class of medicinal products that make their regulation quite challenging. According to the current understanding in the EU, a biosimilar is a copy version of an already authorized biopharmaceutical (or reference product) with similar biologic activity, physicochemical characteristics, efficacy, and safety, based on a full comparability exercise at quality, preclinical and clinical level to ensure similar efficacy and safety. Guidance has been provided through several Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) guidelines as well as individual scientific advice requested from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) by various companies for the development and regulation of biosimilars. This review is mainly focused on the current status of regulation of biosimilars in the EU as well as on future challenges lying ahead for the improvement of the requirements needed for the marketing authorization of biosimilars. Emphasis is given on the quality requirements concerning these medicinal products (biologics).

Can next-generation antibodies offset biosimilar competition?

Sustaining competition for biosimilars on the pharmacy benefit: Use it or lose it

An update on the adalimumab biosimilar landscape following the approval of the first high-concentration biosimilar

Why is there no biosimilar of Erbitux®?

Patent Claim Scope and Biosimilar Competition in the US and EU

Biopharmaceutical benchmarks 2018

Biosimilar competition in European markets of TNF-alpha inhibitors: a comparative analysis of pricing, market share and utilization trends

Antibodies to watch in 2024

A comparative study of the developability of full-length antibodies, fragments, and bispecific formats reveals higher stability risks for engineered constructs

Antibodies to watch in 2016

Overview of Humira® Biosimilars: Current European Landscape and Future Implications

New Horizons in Therapeutic Antibody Discovery: Opportunities and Challenges versus Small-Molecule Therapeutics

Antibodies to watch in 2015

Introducing biosimilar competition for cell and gene therapy products

Comprehensive approaches to preclinical evaluation of monoclonal antibodies and their next-generation derivatives

Antibodies to watch in 2020

The Current Landscape of Antibody-based Therapies in Solid Malignancies

Comparing Originator Biologics and Biosimilars: A Review of the Relevant Issues

Recent Advances in the Development of Monoclonal Antibodies and Next-Generation Antibodies

Clinical Pharmacology Strategies for Bispecific Antibody Development: Learnings from FDA-Approved Bispecific Antibodies in Oncology

Development and regulation of biosimilars: current status and future challenges