Retacrit®, Biosimilar of Epoetin Alfa, in Chemotherapy-Induced Anemia in Routine Practice: Impact of Iron Supplementation.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of the study was to evaluate in real-life conditions the effectiveness and safety of a biosimilar of epoetin alfa (Retacrit®) in chemotherapy-induced anemia and the impact of iron supplementation. METHODS: This was a longitudinal, observational, prospective study of 12-16 weeks conducted in 195 French centers. The primary endpoint was the achievement of target Hb (with an increase of Hb ≥1 g/dL) or an increase of Hb ≥2 g/dL, in the absence of transfusion in the previous 3 weeks. RESULTS: 2,076 patients (women, 50.6%; mean age, 67.0 years) with malignant diseases (solid tumors, 79.8%; lymphomas, 12.7%; multiple myeloma, 6.6%) were analyzed. A total of 655 patients received oral iron (40.5%), intravenous iron (58.9%), or both (0.6%). At inclusion, 10.0% and 18.2% of patients without and with iron supplementation had serum ferritin <100 µg/L, respectively. Transferrin saturation (TSAT) ≤20% was more frequent in patients with supplementation (76.6%) than without supplementation (33.9%). The mean weekly doses of epoetin alfa biosimilar and planned duration of treatment were comparable regardless of iron supplementation. The primary endpoint was achieved in 70.5% and 70.2% of patients without and with iron supplementation, respectively. Three (0.1%) serious thromboembolic events related to treatment with epoetin alfa biosimilar were reported. CONCLUSION: Epoetin alfa biosimilar was effective and well tolerated for treating chemotherapy-induced anemia. Patients in subgroup with iron supplementation had lower TSAT at inclusion compared to subgroup without supplementation. Comparable mean Hb levels were achieved in both subgroups. The rate of patients with iron supplementation through the intravenous route was however insufficient.

Sintilimab plus a bevacizumab biosimilar (IBI305) versus sorafenib in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (ORIENT-32): a randomised, open-label, phase 2-3 study.

BACKGROUND: China has a high burden of hepatocellular carcinoma, and hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection is the main causative factor. Patients with hepatocellular carcinoma have a poor prognosis and a substantial unmet clinical need. The phase 2-3 ORIENT-32 study aimed to assess sintilimab (a PD-1 inhibitor) plus IBI305, a bevacizumab biosimilar, versus sorafenib as a first-line treatment for unresectable HBV-associated hepatocellular carcinoma. METHODS: This randomised, open-label, phase 2-3 study was done at 50 clinical sites in China. Patients aged 18 years or older with histologically or cytologically diagnosed or clinically confirmed unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma, no previous systemic treatment, and a baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1 were eligible for inclusion. In the phase 2 part of the study, patients received intravenous sintilimab (200 mg every 3 weeks) plus intravenous IBI305 (15 mg/kg every 3 weeks). In the phase 3 part, patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive either sintilimab plus IBI305 (sintilimab-bevacizumab biosimilar group) or sorafenib (400 mg orally twice daily; sorafenib group), until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Randomisation was done using permuted block randomisation, with a block size of six, via an interactive web response system, and stratified by macrovascular invasion or extrahepatic metastasis, baseline α-fetoprotein, and ECOG performance status. The primary endpoint of the phase 2 part of the study was safety, assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. The co-primary endpoints of the phase 3 part of the study were overall survival and independent radiological review committee (IRRC)-assessed progression-free survival according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1 in the intention-to-treat population. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03794440. The study is closed to new participants and follow-up is ongoing for long-term outcomes. FINDINGS: Between Feb 11, 2019 and Jan 15, 2020, we enrolled 595 patients: 24 were enrolled directly into the phase 2 safety run-in and 571 were randomly assigned to sintilimab-bevacizumab biosimilar (n=380) or sorafenib (n=191). In the phase 2 part of the trial, 24 patients received at least one dose of the study drug, with an objective response rate of 25·0% (95% CI 9·8-46·7). Based on the preliminary safety and activity data of the phase 2 part, in which grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events occurred in seven (29%) of 24 patients, the randomised phase 3 part was started. At data cutoff (Aug 15, 2020), the median follow-up was 10·0 months (IQR 8·5-11·7) in the sintilimab-bevacizumab biosimilar group and 10·0 months (8·4-11·7) in the sorafenib group. Patients in the sintilimab-bevacizumab biosimilar group had a significantly longer IRRC-assessed median progression-free survival (4·6 months [95% CI 4·1-5·7]) than did patients in the sorafenib group (2·8 months [2·7-3·2]; stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0·56, 95% CI 0·46-0·70; p<0·0001). In the first interim analysis of overall survival, sintilimab-bevacizumab biosimilar showed a significantly longer overall survival than did sorafenib (median not reached [95% CI not reached-not reached] vs 10·4 months [8·5-not reached]; HR 0·57, 95% CI 0·43-0·75; p<0·0001). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events were hypertension (55 [14%] of 380 patients in the sintilimab-bevacizumab biosimilar group vs 11 [6%] of 185 patients in the sorafenib group) and palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia syndrome (none vs 22 [12%]). 123 (32%) patients in the sintilimab-bevacizumab biosimilar group and 36 (19%) patients in the sorafenib group had serious adverse events. Treatment-related adverse events that led to death occurred in six (2%) patients in the sintilimab-bevacizumab biosimilar group (one patient with abnormal liver function, one patient with both hepatic failure and gastrointestinal haemorrhage, one patient with interstitial lung disease, one patient with both hepatic faliure and hyperkalemia, one patient with upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage, and one patient with intestinal volvulus) and two (1%) patients in the sorafenib group (one patient with gastrointestinal haemorrhage and one patient with death of unknown cause). INTERPRETATION: Sintilimab plus IBI305 showed a significant overall survival and progression-free survival benefit versus sorafenib in the first-line setting for Chinese patients with unresectable, HBV-associated hepatocellular carcinoma, with an acceptable safety profile. This combination regimen could provide a novel treatment option for such patients. FUNDING: Innovent Biologics. TRANSLATION: For the Chinese translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Are biosimilars approved for use in psoriasis safe enough to replace leading biologic therapies? A review.

Introduction: Many tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha 'biosimilar' agents have been approved for the treatment of psoriasis and other autoinflammatory conditions. These biosimilars have the same structure as the originator biologic and have been shown to be equivalent in terms of safety and efficacy. However, given the method by which biosimilars are manufactured, they are not exact replicas of the originator, unlike generic forms of non-biologic medications. Therefore, there is controversy regarding whether these agents should be considered interchangeable with their originator biologics.Areas covered: The objective of this review is to summarize the safety data for each of the approved TNF-alpha biosimilars to determine whether or not these agents have appropriate safety profiles to replace their originator biologics.Expert opinion: Based on extrapolation of phase III investigations in patients with rheumatologic diseases, each of the approved anti-TNF agents have comparable efficacy, tolerability, and safety profiles to their originators. Studies in patients with psoriasis are more limited. Transitioning from a biologic to its biosimilar has also been shown to be similarly safe and immunogenetic compared to maintenance therapy with the originator. More post-marketing studies are needed to demonstrate the long-term safety in patients with psoriasis.

Scientific rationale underpinning the development of biosimilar rituximab in hematological cancers and inflammatory diseases.

Sandoz rituximab (SDZ-RTX; Rixathon®; GP2013), a rituximab biosimilar, was approved in June 2017 in Europe in all indications of reference rituximab. The stepwise SDZ-RTX development program generated extensive physicochemical, structural, functional, and biological data demonstrating a match with reference rituximab on all clinically relevant attributes. A focused clinical development program followed, in two indications selected for sensitivity to detect potential differences versus reference rituximab: rheumatoid arthritis (pivotal pharmacokinetics and efficacy evaluation) and follicular lymphoma (pivotal efficacy/safety evaluation). These trials demonstrated highly similar pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity profiles. The totality of evidence for biosimilarity for SDZ-RTX, combined with knowledge that B-cell depletion is common to each approved indication, allowed SDZ-RTX approval for use in all indications of reference rituximab.

Bevacizumab biosimilar BEVZ92 versus reference bevacizumab in combination with FOLFOX or FOLFIRI as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer: a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: BEVZ92 is a proposed biosimilar to bevacizumab. The two molecules have similar physicochemical and functional properties in in-vitro and preclinical studies. In this clinical study, we compared the pharmacokinetic profile, efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of BEVZ92 with reference bevacizumab as a first-line treatment in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. METHODS: We did a randomised, open-label trial at 15 centres in Argentina, Brazil, India, Spain, and Ukraine. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had metastatic colorectal cancer with at least one measurable non-irradiated lesion for which first-line chemotherapy was indicated and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 2 or less, had not received previous treatment for advanced disease, and whose bone marrow, hepatic, renal, and coagulation markers were all within normal ranges. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either BEVZ92 or reference bevacizumab (5 mg/kg on day 1 of each cycle every 2 weeks) in combination with fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) or fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI). Randomisation was done via a web service based on a stochastic minimisation algorithm and was stratified by chemotherapy regimen (FOLFOX vs FOLFIRI), previous adjuvant therapy (yes vs no), ECOG performance status (0-1 vs 2), and study site. The primary endpoint was the area under the concentration-versus-time curve after a single infusion (AUC0-336h) and at steady state (AUCss)-ie, at cycle 7-in the assessable population, which comprised all treated patients for whom serum concentration measurements were available during the first seven cycles. Bioequivalence was established if the 90% CIs for the ratio of BEVZ92 to reference bevacizumab of the geometric means for AUC0-336h and AUCss were within the acceptance interval of 80-125%. Secondary endpoints included objective response, clinical benefit, and progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population and immunogenicity and safety profiles in all treated patients. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02069704, and is closed to new participants, with follow-up completed. FINDINGS: 142 patients were randomly assigned, 71 to the BEVZ92 group and 71 to the reference bevacizumab group. Two participants assigned to BEVZ92 did not receive treatment (one withdrew consent, the other had a serious intestinal obstruction before starting treatment); therefore, the treated population comprised 69 patients in the BEVZ92 group and 71 in the reference bevacizumab group. The geometric mean ratio of AUC0-336h in the BEVZ92 versus the control group was 99·4% (90% CI 90·5-109·0) and of AUCss was 100·0% (90·2-112·0). Objective response (35 [49%] of 71 vs 40 [56%] of 71), clinical benefit (62 [87%] vs 65 [92%]), and progression-free survival (median 10·8 months [95% CI 7·4-11·5] vs 11·1 months [95% CI 8·0-12·8]) were similar in the BEVZ92 and reference bevacizumab groups. No relevant differences were noted between the safety profiles of the two study treatments. Neutropenia was the most common grade 3 or 4 adverse event reported in the BEVZ92 (14 [20%] of 69 patients) and reference bevacizumab (19 [27%] of 71 patients) groups. Serious adverse events occurred in 19 (28%) patients in the BEVZ92 group and 21 (30%) in the reference bevacizumab group. Two patients died because of bevacizumab-related serious adverse events: a sudden death in the BEVZ92 group and a serious large intestinal perforation in the reference bevacizumab group. The occurrence of anti-drug antibodies was low and similar in both treatment groups (two patients in the BEVZ92 group and one in the reference bevacizumab group). INTERPRETATION: Our results suggest that BEVZ92 and reference bevacizumab are pharmacokinetically bioequivalent and have no appreciable differences in efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety profiles as first-line treatment in combination with FOLFOX or FOLFIRI in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. FUNDING: mAbxience Research SL.

Phase III, Randomized, Double-Blind Study Comparing the Efficacy, Safety, and Immunogenicity of SB3 (Trastuzumab Biosimilar) and Reference Trastuzumab in Patients Treated With Neoadjuvant Therapy for Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Positive Early Breast Cancer.

Purpose This phase III study compared SB3, a trastuzumab (TRZ) biosimilar, with reference TRZ in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive early breast cancer in the neoadjuvant setting ( ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02149524). Patients and Methods Patients were randomly assigned to receive neoadjuvant SB3 or TRZ for eight cycles concurrently with chemotherapy (four cycles of docetaxel followed by four cycles of fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide) followed by surgery, and then 10 cycles of adjuvant SB3 or TRZ. The primary objective was comparison of breast pathologic complete response (bpCR) rate in the per-protocol set; equivalence was declared if the 95% CI of the ratio was within 0.785 to 1.546 or the 95% CI of the difference was within ± 13%. Secondary end points included comparisons of total pathologic complete response rate, overall response rate, event-free survival, overall survival, safety, pharmacokinetics, and immunogenicity. Results Eight hundred patients were included in the per-protocol set (SB3, n = 402; TRZ, n = 398). The bpCR rates were 51.7% and 42.0% with SB3 and TRZ, respectively. The adjusted ratio of bpCR was 1.259 (95% CI, 1.085 to 1.460), which was within the predefined equivalence margins. The adjusted difference was 10.70% (95% CI, 4.13% to 17.26%), with the lower limit contained within and the upper limit outside the equivalence margin. The total pathologic complete response rates were 45.8% and 35.8% and the overall response rates were 96.3% and 91.2% with SB3 and TRZ, respectively. Overall, 96.6% and 95.2% of patients experienced one or more adverse event, 10.5% and 10.7% had a serious adverse event, and 0.7% and 0.0% had antidrug antibodies (up to cycle 9) with SB3 and TRZ, respectively. Conclusion Equivalence for efficacy was demonstrated between SB3 and TRZ on the basis of the ratio of bpCR rates. Safety and immunogenicity were comparable.

CT-P6 compared with reference trastuzumab for HER2-positive breast cancer: a randomised, double-blind, active-controlled, phase 3 equivalence trial.

BACKGROUND: CT-P6 is a proposed biosimilar to reference trastuzumab. In this study, we aimed to establish equivalence of CT-P6 to reference trastuzumab in neoadjuvant treatment of HER2-positive early-stage breast cancer. METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind, active-controlled, phase 3 equivalence trial, we recruited women aged 18 years or older with stage I-IIIa operable HER2-positive breast cancer from 112 centres in 23 countries. Inclusion criteria were an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0 or 1; a normal left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 55%; adequate bone marrow, hepatic, and renal function; at least one measureable lesion; and known oestrogen and progesterone receptor status. Exclusion criteria included bilateral breast cancer, previous breast cancer treatment, previous anthracycline treatment, and pregnancy or lactation. We randomly allocated patients 1:1 to receive neoadjuvant CT-P6 or reference trastuzumab intravenously (eight cycles, each lasting 3 weeks, for 24 weeks; 8 mg/kg on day 1 of cycle 1 and 6 mg/kg on day 1 of cycles 2-8) in conjunction with neoadjuvant docetaxel (75 mg/m2 on day 1 of cycles 1-4) and FEC (fluorouracil [500 mg/m2], epirubicin [75 mg/m2], and cyclophosphamide [500 mg/m2]; day 1 of cycles 5-8) therapy. We stratified randomisation by clinical stage, receptor status, and country and used permuted blocks. We did surgery within 3-6 weeks of the final neoadjuvant study drug dose, followed by an adjuvant treatment period of up to 1 year. We monitored long-term safety and efficacy for 3 years after the last patient was enrolled. Participants and investigators were masked to treatment until study completion. The primary efficacy endpoint, analysed in the per-protocol population, was pathological complete response, assessed via specimens obtained during surgery, analysed by masked central review of local histopathology reports. The equivalence margin was -0·15 to 0·15. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02162667, and is ongoing, but no longer recruiting. FINDINGS: Between Aug 7, 2014, and May 6, 2016, we randomly allocated 549 patients (271 [49%] to CT-P6 vs 278 [51%] to reference trastuzumab). A similar proportion of patients achieved pathological complete response with CT-P6 (116 [46·8%; 95% CI 40·4-53·2] of 248 patients) and reference trastuzumab (129 [50·4%; 44·1-56·7] of 256 patients). The 95% CI of the estimated treatment outcome difference (-0·04% [95% CI -0·12 to 0·05]) was within the equivalence margin. 19 (7%) of 271 patients in the CT-P6 group reported serious treatment-emergent adverse events versus 22 (8%) of 278 in the reference trastuzumab group; frequent (occurring in more than one patient) serious adverse events were febrile neutropenia (four [1%] vs one [<1%]) and neutropenia (one [<1%] vs two [1%]). Grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events occurred in 17 (6%) of 271 patients in the CT-P6 group versus 23 (8%) of 278 in the reference trastuzumab group; the most frequently reported adverse event was neutropenia in ten (4%) versus 14 (5%). INTERPRETATION: CT-P6 showed equivalent efficacy to reference trastuzumab and adverse events were similar. Availability of trastuzumab biosimilars could increase access to this targeted therapy for HER2-positive early-stage cancer. FUNDING: Celltrion Inc.

Biosimilars in inflammatory bowel disease: A review of post-marketing experience.

Biologic compounds are obtained from living organisms or cell cultures by means of biotechnology methods. A similar biologic drug, commonly called biosimilar, is a product copied by a native approved biologic drug whose license has expired. Biosimilar drugs usually are marketed at a lower price and provide important financial savings for public healthcare systems. Some differences between biosimilars and original biologic drugs might exist but they are acceptable if they fall within defined "boundaries of tolerance": differences in some features between the two molecules are considered important only if clinical relevant. Considering that the efficacy of the innovator biologic drug has already been established, the clinical studies required for approval of a biosimilar could be reduced compared with those required for the approval of the originator. In this review, real life data available in inflammatory bowel disease patients treated with biosimilars are reported, documenting in general satisfactory outcomes, sustained efficacy and no sign of increased immunogenicity, although, further controlled data are awaited.

Emerging biologics in inflammatory bowel disease.

Early biologic therapy is recommended in patients with inflammatory bowel disease and poor prognostic factors and in those refractory to conventional medications. Anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) agents are the most commonly used biologic agents. However, some patients may not have an initial response to anti-TNF therapy, and one-third will develop loss of response over time. Anti-TNF drugs can also be associated with side effects. In addition, the use of biologics is currently limited by their cost, especially in developing countries. A number of new therapeutic targets, including novel small molecules, and cellular therapy are available or under investigation. These novel molecules include oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor (tofacitinib), interleukin inhibitor (ustekinumab), oral SMAD7 antisense oligonucleotide (mongersen), and anti-integrin inhibitors (vedolizumab). Here, we review the mechanisms of action, the efficacy, and the safety data of these novel agents. Biological products that are highly similar to reference biologic products whose patents have expired-also known as "biosimilars"-can be produced at lower cost with similar efficacy, and are also available for the treatment of IBD. We review the efficacy data for such agents as well.

Biosimilars: A new scenario in biologic therapies. / Fármacos biosimilares: un nuevo escenario en las terapias biológicas.

There is no doubt that biologic therapies provide added value for health systems. However, due to their special nature, they also raise some questions that make highly rigorous and demanding quality control and monitoring of their use indispensable. This circumstance is reinforced with the appearance on the scene of biosimilars, which, given their lower cost, are having an increasing impact on the international market. The purpose of this article is to review the major issues posed by their manufacture, distribution and control systems, as well as the most important aspects related to their safety in clinical practice. In this report, we assess the pharmacovigilance of these products, with special attention to traceability, as a key tool to enable earlier detection of adverse events.

[Biosimilars in oncology: a therapeutic alternative to the reference products?] / Biosimilars in der Onkologie: Eine therapeutische Alternative zu Referenzarzneimitteln?

Biosimilar medicinal products (biosimilars) have been available in Europe for 10 years, allowing a wide use particularly in oncology. Biosimilars are being developed and approved by means of scientifically sound principles to assure close similarity with the reference products with regard to quality, efficacy, and safety. The scientific principles for establishing biosimilarity are the same as those for demonstrating comparability after a change in the manufacturing process of an already licensed biological. Nevertheless, many clinicians voiced concerns about biosimilars related to their pharmaceutical quality, efficacy (particularly in extrapolated indications), safety (especially immunogenicity), and interchangeability with the originator product. The availability of biosimilars would strengthen the economic competition on the pharmaceutical market, provide opportunities to improve healthcare access, and contribute to the financial sustainability of European healthcare systems. Biosimilars can be considered therapeutic alternatives to the reference product. To date, no data has been published revealing any disadvantages of the biosimilars' use. This article aims to acquaint clinicians, particularly oncologists and haematologists, with the biosimilar concept as they are going to be confronted with a constantly increasing number of biosimilars due to patent expirations in the near future. Furthermore, it provides information on scientific principles guiding biosimilar development and regulatory requirements. This should minimise unfounded fears and concerns among clinicians. Additionally, we provide information on the interchangeability between originator products and biosimilars to assist clinicians in making evidence-based, appropriate, and cost-effective treatment choices for their patients.

Biosimilar monoclonal antibodies: preclinical and clinical development aspects.

Biological drugs and their originated biosimilars are large, highly complex molecules derived from living cells or organisms. Traditional medicines, by contrast, are usually simple molecules of low molecular weight, synthesised by chemical means. The distinct complexities and methods of manufacture create an important difference between biosimilars and conventional generic drugs: while chemical generics can be fully characterised as identical to the originator product, biosimilars cannot. In addition, biological therapies are inherently variable, creating unavoidable differences between even subsequent batches of the same product. An expiring patent does not necessarily mean that the manufacturing process of the originator product becomes available to the biosimilar developers (for instance, the relevant cell line clone and growth medium). Therefore, it cannot be guaranteed that biosimilar products are identical to their reference product on a molecular level. This difference has important implications for the regulation and licensing of biosimilars. While conventional generic drugs require only a limited comparison and demonstration of identical chemical structure to the reference product, biosimilars require far more rigorous testing. In general, there must be a thorough comparison of structural and functional characteristics between biosimilar and originator drug. Stepwise nonclinical in vitro and in vivo approaches are recommended to evaluate the similarity of both drugs and any identified micro-heterogeneities must then be assessed for their impact on safety and clinical performance. Subsequently, clinical pharmacokinetic (PK) studies need to be performed in order to demonstrate a similar PK profile, prior to conducting clinical efficacy trials.

[Biosimilars in rheumatology. Development and results of clinical trials]. / Biosimilars in der Rheumatologie. Entwicklung und Ergebnisse klinischer Studien.

BACKGROUND: This article presents the design of clinical trials for the development of biosimilars in the European Union and the United States, with special focus on inflammatory diseases. METHODS: All information available in PubMed and the Internet relating to the clinical development of biosimilars in inflammatory rheumatic conditions (e.g. rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis) was collated. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) and US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) websites were screened for guidelines on biosimilars. RESULTS: More than 10 years ago the EMA began to publish guidelines for the development of biosimilars and several biosimilars have now been approved. In the USA the FDA has published guidance for the nonclinical and clinical development of biosimilars but until early 2015 no biosimilar had been approved. CONCLUSION: Clinical trials aim to resolve uncertainties that may remain following nonclinical development regarding the similarity of the proposed biosimilar with the reference product. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies are essential for early clinical development and further phase 3 clinical studies. Factors to be considered in the clinical process include study population, design, endpoints, sample size, duration and analytical methods.

Nonclinical safety testing of biopharmaceuticals--Addressing current challenges of these novel and emerging therapies.

Non-clinical safety testing of biopharmaceuticals can present significant challenges to human risk assessment with these often innovative and complex drugs. Hot Topics in this field were discussed recently at the 4th Annual European Biosafe General Membership meeting. In this feature article, the presentations and subsequent discussions from the main sessions are summarized. The topics covered include: (i) wanted versus unwanted immune activation, (ii) bi-specific protein scaffolds, (iii) use of Pharmacokinetic (PK)/Pharmacodynamic (PD) data to impact/optimize toxicology study design, (iv) cytokine release and challenges to human translation (v) safety testing of cell and gene therapies including chimeric antigen receptor T (CAR-T) cells and retroviral vectors and (vi) biopharmaceutical development strategies encompassing a range of diverse topics including optimizing entry of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) into the brain, safety testing of therapeutic vaccines, non-clinical testing of biosimilars, infection in toxicology studies with immunomodulators and challenges to human risk assessment, maternal and infant anti-drug antibody (ADA) development and impact in non-human primate (NHP) developmental toxicity studies, and a summary of an NC3Rs workshop on the future vision for non-clinical safety assessment of biopharmaceuticals.

Key considerations in the preclinical development of biosimilars.

Biosimilar development requires several steps: selection of an appropriate reference biologic, understanding the key molecular attributes of that reference biologic and development of a manufacturing process to match these attributes of the reference biologic product. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the FDA guidance documents state that, in lieu of conducting extensive preclinical and clinical studies typically required for approval of novel biologics, biosimilars must undergo a rigorous similarity evaluation. The aim of this article is to increase understanding of the preclinical development and evaluation process for biosimilars, as required by the regulatory agencies, that precedes the clinical testing of biosimilars in humans.

Considerations in the early development of biosimilar products.

The widespread use and patent expiration of many biologics have led to global interest in development of biosimilar products. Because the manufacture of biologics, including biosimilars, is a complex process involving living systems, the development of a biosimilar is more rigorous than the development of a generic small molecule drug. Several regulatory agencies have established or are proposing guidelines that recommend a stepwise process to ensure the efficacy and safety of a biosimilar are highly similar to the reference product. This article also explores the early clinical phase of biosimilar development, which is particularly important to resolving any uncertainties that might remain following in vitro and in vivo evaluations and to enable a selective and targeted approach to Phase III clinical efficacy and safety investigation.

[Evolution of biologicals in inflammation medicine--biosimilars in gastroenterology, rheumatology and dermatology]. / Evolution der Biologika in der Entzündungsmedizin--Biosimilars in Gastroenterologie, Rheumatologie und Dermatologie.

Biologicals revolutionized the therapy of chronic inflammatory diseases in gastroenterology, rheumatology and dermatology in the last decade. The first generation biologicals mainly targeted against the pro-inflammatory cytokine TNF-α. The evolution of these therapies in the last years led to the development of new antibodies and to the admission of first generation "generic" biologics - the biosimilars. Biosimilars are not a fundamental new pharmacological development for existing substances, however they have the potential to lead to enormous cost savings in healthcare without reducing the level of care for patients. Biosimilars are not identical with the originator, but in an extensive biosimilarity exercise including analytical, preclinical and comparative clinical studies it was shown that the biosimilars could demonstrate comparability in all relevant aspects with the originator.In September 2013, the Infliximab biosimilars (Inflectra(®), Remsina(®)) were the first biosimilars for monoclonal antibodies to be authorized by the EMA for use in the European Union. By demonstrating the therapeutic similarity only in one indication (rheumatoid arthritis) the EMA agreed with an extrapolation also to all approved indications of the originator. This could be a relevant problem in clinical practice. Therefore, comparative studies with the originator are required in all approved indications.After expiration of the national patent protection in beginning of 2015, the infliximab biosimilars will be launched on the market in Germany and will be part of the therapeutic arsenal in gastroenterology, rheumatology and dermatology. Interchangeability (Switching) of biosimilars with the originator will be subject of an important discussion with the health care providers. Regardless of the biosimilars EMA-approval, several potential problems (efficacy, extrapolation, switching, long-term safety) should be the topic of intensive long-term registries in the future.

Measures of biosimilarity in monoclonal antibodies in oncology: the case of bevacizumab.

Biosimilars have been available on the European market since 2006 and experience with their use is increasing. The next wave of biopharmaceuticals that are about to lose patent protection consists of more-complicated products, including many monoclonal antibodies. Guidance has been released on the particulars of a biosimilarity exercise involving these products. Considerable challenges exist to establish biosimilarity for anticancer products. An especially challenging product is bevacizumab (Avastin(®)). On the basis of data available for the innovator product (bevacizumab) we will discuss strengths and weaknesses of preclinical and clinical models and explore the application of novel endpoints to the biosimilar comparability exercise.