A Regulatory Perspective on Biosimilar Medicines.

By definition, biosimilar medicinal products are biological medicinal products that are similar to other biological medicinal products that are already on the market-the reference medicinal products. Access to biosimilar medicines is a current reality. However, to achieve this goal, it is extremely important to consistently and scientifically substantiate the regulatory requirements necessary for biosimilar medicines when accessing the market. Based on an analysis of the raw materials and the type of methods used in the manufacturing processes of biological medicines, it is known that this tends to be more complex for the quality of the finished product than the manufacture of molecules obtained through a chemical process. It is then relevant to highlight the main differences between both products: biological medicines manufactured using biotechnology and the current generics containing active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) obtained from synthetic processes. Once arriving at the approval process of these medicinal products, it is imperative to analyse the guidance documents and the regulatory framework that create the rules that allow these biosimilar medicinal products to come to the market. The present review aimed at documenting comparatively the specific provisions of European legislation, through the European Medicines Agency (EMA), as well as the legislation of the United States of America, through the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This was then translated into a critical appraisal of what concerns the specific criteria that determine the favourable evaluation of a biosimilar when an application for marketing authorisation is submitted to different regulatory agencies. The gathered evidence suggests that the key to the success of biosimilar medicines lies in a more rigorous and universal regulation as well as a greater knowledge, acceptance, and awareness of health professionals to enable more patients to be treated with biological strategies at an earlier stage of the disease and with more affordable medicines, ensuring always the safety and efficacy of those medicines.

A randomized, double-blind, comparative study of the pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of GP40141 (romiplostim biosimilar) and reference romiplostim in healthy male volunteers.

AIMS: The pharmacodynamic (PD) similarity between GP40141, a proposed romiplostim biosimilar, and reference romiplostim was evaluated. Pharmacokinetics and safety were also assessed. METHODS: In this phase 1, randomized, double-blind, single-dose, crossover comparative study with an adaptive design, 56 healthy male volunteers were randomized 1:1 to receive a 3 ug × kg-1 subcutaneous dose of GP40141 and reference romiplostim. The PD similarity between GP40141 and the reference romiplostim was determined using the standard equivalence criteria (80%-125%) for the area under the platelet count-time curve from time 0 to the time of the last sampling for PD (AUCplt ) and the maximum observed platelet count (Pmax ). RESULTS: GP40141 and the reference romiplostim exhibited similar PD profiles. 90% CI for the geometric mean ratios for the primary PD parameters (AUCplt, Pmax ) for GP40141 (T) and the reference romiplostim (R) were fully contained within the predefined equivalence limits of 80%-125%: 98.13%-102.42% for AUCplt and 97.56%-105.80% for Pmax . The pharmacokinetic profiles of GP40141 and the reference romiplostim were well described. No adverse events were observed during the clinical trial after the administration of GP40141 and the reference romiplostim. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the PD similarity of GP40141 to the reference romiplostim. Both treatments had comparable safety profiles (NCT05652595).

A phase I study comparing the biosimilarity of the pharmacokinetics and safety of recombinant humanized anti-vascular endothelial growth factor monoclonal antibody injection with Avastin® in healthy Chinese male subjects.

BACKGROUND: The biosimilar landscape for malignancies continues to grow, with several biosimilars for reference product bevacizumab currently available. Bevacizumab has been shown to be well tolerated; however, the safety of recombinant humanized anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) monoclonal antibody injection remains unclear. This study aimed to compare the pharmacokinetics (PK), safety, and immunogenicity of recombinant humanized anti-VEGF monoclonal antibody injection to that of Avastin® in healthy Chinese male volunteers. METHODS: A randomized, double-blind, single-dose, and parallel-group study was performed on 88 healthy men who randomly (1:1) received either the test drug as an intravenous infusion of 3 mg/kg or Avastin®. The primary PK parameter was area under the serum concentration-time curve (AUC) from time zero to last quantifiable concentration (AUC0-t). Secondary endpoints included maximum observed serum concentration (Cmax), AUC from 0 extrapolated to infinity (AUCinf), safety, and immunogenicity. Serum bevacizumab concentrations were measured using a validated enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). RESULTS: The baseline characteristics were similar among the two groups. The 90% confidence interval (CI) for the geometric mean ratio of AUC0-t, Cmax and AUCinf between the test group and reference group were 91.71%-103.18%, 95.72%-107.49% and 91.03%-103.43%, respectively. These values were within the predefined bioequivalence margin of 80.00%-125.00%, demonstrating the biosimilarity of the test drug and Avastin®. Eighty-one treatment-emergent adverse events were reported, with a comparable incidence among the test group (90.91%) and the reference group (93.18%). No serious adverse events were reported. The incidence of ADA antibodies in the two groups was low and similar. CONCLUSION: In healthy Chinese men, PK similarity of recombinant humanized anti-VEGF monoclonal antibody injection to Avastin® was confirmed, with comparable safety and immunogenicity. Subsequent studies should investigate recombinant humanized anti-VEGF monoclonal antibody injection in patients setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered 08/10/2019, CTR20191923.

Innovative Metrics for Reporting and Comparing the Glycan Structural Profile in Biotherapeutics.

Glycosylation is a critical quality attribute in biotherapeutics, impacting properties such as protein stability, solubility, clearance rate, efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety. Due to the heterogenic and complex nature of protein glycosylation, comprehensive characterization is demanding. Moreover, the lack of standardized metrics for evaluating and comparing glycosylation profiles hinders comparability studies and the establishment of manufacturing control strategies. To address both challenges, we propose a standardized approach based on novel metrics for a comprehensive glycosylation fingerprint which greatly facilitates the reporting and objective comparison of glycosylation profiles. The analytical workflow is based on a liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry-based multi-attribute method. Based on the analytical data, a matrix of glycosylation-related quality attributes, both at site-specific and whole molecule level, are computed, which provide metrics for a comprehensive product glycosylation fingerprint. Two case studies illustrate the applicability of the proposed indices as a standardized and versatile approach for reporting all dimensions of the glycosylation profile. The proposed approach further facilitates the assessments of risks associated with changes in the glycosylation profile that may affect efficacy, clearance, and immunogenicity.

Biosimilars Adoption: Recognizing and Removing the RoadBlocks.

Almost two decades since biosimilars arrived, we still await their broader adoption, as anticipated. The roadblocks to this adoption include the high amortized cost of goods due to regulatory burden, hurdles created by the distribution system, perception of safety and efficacy, and lack of focus by stakeholders on removing these roadblocks. In this paper, I analyze the source of these roadblocks and offer practical solutions to remove them. These efforts are needed to maximize the adoption of biosimilars to encourage the entry of 100+ biological molecules that can bring affordable healthcare direly missing today across the globe.

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic study of three products of epoetin alfa as single subcutaneous dose in healthy volunteers.

Hemax® is an epoetin alfa product developed by Biosidus S.A. in Argentina at the end of the 1980s and has been present in that market since 1991. The initial presentation was a lyophilized powder containing albumin as stabilizer, to best adapt to environmental conditions in developing countries; more recently, a prefilled syringe, albumin-free presentation was developed, since this presentation has become the preferred standard in many markets. The primary objective was to compare the pharmacokinetic profile of different formulations of epoetin alfa after a single subcutaneous administration to healthy volunteers of 40 000 IU of Eprex/Erypo® and Hemax® PFS. This clinical trial was conceived following an open-label, randomized, three-way three-period cross-over balanced, and sequential design. The study was conducted on 24 healthy volunteers. To analyze similarity between Hemax® PFS and the innovator product, Eprex®, area under the curve (AUC) and Cmax of both products have been compared. The 90% CI lower limit for the geometric mean ratios was higher than 80% for any comparisons, and the 90% CI upper limit for these geometric ratios was below 125% for all the comparisons made, thus demonstrating equivalence between both products. The comparison between Hemax® PFS and Eprex® resulted in similar 90% CI for Cmax , AUC(0-120 h) and AUC(0-inf) ratios, all of them within the 80-125% interval, with a power above 95% for each ratio. These findings suggest biosimilar patterns for absorption velocity (with Tmax close to 15 h), absorption extent, and elimination (with an elimination half-life close to 25-30 h for each formulation).

Biosimilarity Assessment of the Biosimilar Teriparatide Candidate and the Reference Drug in Healthy Subjects.

SAL001, a recombinant form of parathyroid hormone, is a biosimilar drug to teriparatide and is planned to be used in osteoporosis treatment. A single-dose, randomized, open-label, 2-way crossover trial was conducted in healthy subjects to compare the pharmacokinetics (PK) and safety between SAL001 and the reference drug. Sixty-four subjects were enrolled in the study, and 61 subjects completed the study. In each period, 20 µg of the test or reference formulation was administered subcutaneously. SAL001 was administered by autoinjector pen, whereas the reference drug was administered by a self-matched injection pen. Serial blood samples were obtained for the analyses of PK and serum calcium concentration. Geometric mean ratios with 90%CIs for the maximum plasma concentration (Cmax ) and area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) were estimated. The safety of these 2 formulations was also evaluated. Overall, the 90%CIs for the geometric mean ratios of Cmax , AUC from time 0 to the last quantifiable time point, and AUC from time 0 extrapolated to infinity of the test or reference product were within 80.0%-125.0% of biosimilarity criteria. Other PK parameters, serum calcium concentration, and safety profiles had no significant differences between the 2 formulations. SAL001 demonstrated PK similarity to the reference drug, and the serum calcium concentration and safety profiles of SAL001 were also considered comparable to the reference drug.

Pharmacokinetics of a proposed tocilizumab biosimilar (MSB11456) versus US-licensed tocilizumab: results of a randomized, double-blind, single-intravenous dose study in healthy adults.

BACKGROUND: Tocilizumab, a recombinant monoclonal immunoglobulin G, targets the interleukin-6 receptor. MSB11456 is a proposed tocilizumab biosimilar. OBJECTIVES: To assess pharmacokinetic equivalence of intravenous MSB11456 to US-licensed tocilizumab. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this double-blind, parallel-group, single-dose study, 128 healthy adults were randomized to a single one-hour 8 mg/kg IV infusion of either MSB11456 or US-licensed tocilizumab. Blood samples were collected pre-dose and at regular intervals up to day 48 post-dose. The primary endpoint pharmacokinetic parameter was analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the natural logarithm of the endpoint (AUC0-last), with treatment as a fixed effect. Immunogenicity and safety data were summarized descriptively. RESULTS: Subjects received either MSB11456 (N = 62) or US-licensed tocilizumab (N = 66). Pharmacokinetic bioequivalence, defined as 90% confidence intervals for the geometric least squares mean ratio entirely contained within the 80.00% to 125.00% equivalence limits, was demonstrated between MSB11456 and US-licensed tocilizumab for the primary and secondary pharmacokinetic endpoints. Anti-drug antibody responses, frequency of neutralizing antibodies against tocilizumab, and safety profiles showed no notable between-treatment differences. Safety was comparable between treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacokinetic similarity of MSB11456 and US-licensed tocilizumab was demonstrated, with comparable immunogenicity and safety profiles, supporting MSB11455 as a biosimilar to US-licensed tocilizumab. The trial is registered at EudraCT, number 2019-003484-22.

Tocilizumab is a biologic drug that is prescribed for autoimmune conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis in adults and arthritis in children where the cause is unknown. Because of the high cost of biologic drugs, alternate similar drugs are being designed and tested to ensure that they are as effective and as safe as drugs that are currently available. These new drugs are called biosimilars. MSB11456 is a proposed tocilizumab biosimilar. Our study tested how the pharmacokinetics, immunogenicity, and safety of intravenously administered MSB11456 compared to that of the already approved tocilizumab drug marketed in the US (US-licensed tocilizumab). One hundred and twenty-eight healthy adult volunteers received a one-hour 8 mg/kg intravenous infusion of either MSB11456 or US-licensed tocilizumab in this randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, single-dose study. Blood samples were taken before and at scheduled times during the study, up to 48 days after the first dose for analysis. In this study, we showed that the pharmacokinetics of MSB11456 were equivalent to the US-licensed tocilizumab. The safety and immune response to the drugs were also similar. These findings indicate that MSB11456 can be considered a biosimilar to tocilizumab. Biosimilars can reduce the cost of drugs by increasing competition and improve access to these, generally expensive, treatment options.

Taking the individual bias out of examining comparability of biosimilars: A case study on monoclonal antibody therapeutics.

Biosimilar manufacturers need to perform analytical and functional similarity assessments against the reference product. Successful demonstration allows for an abbreviated clinical path, thereby translating to affordable biosimilars. Current practices for regulatory concurrence on analytical similarity data are based on chart visualization and open to individual (human) bias. Here, we present a novel, chemometric approach for assessing biosimilarity that aims to simplify assessment and eliminate individual bias from decision making through application of weighted principal component analysis. Through the proposed approach, chemical information across the analytical characterization platform and drug products can be collated into a single plot for quantitative biosimilarity assessment. The proposed one-plot analysis offers a holistic visualization of 1) inter-product variability (w.r.t reference product) in cases where multiple batches per product have been investigated and 2) intra-product variability for each critical quality attribute (CQA) wherein information from orthogonal tools can be incorporated within the same plot. This allows for numerical grading of similarity for biosimilars of any given reference product. Although the proposed statistical approach is novel, it builds on standardized measures of CQA, criticality, and analytical procedures, thus making this approach easy to incorporate within the existing regulatory framework.

A Novel Bootstrapping Test for Analytical Biosimilarity.

Showing analytical similarity is key to license biosimilar products with reduced or circumvented clinical effort. Statistical procedures to assess analytical similarity of quality attributes at drug product level have been highly debated by academia, industry, and regulatory agencies. In the past, a tiered approach was recommended by regulators, consisting of equivalence tests and quality range tests. However, this approach has recently been withdrawn by FDA. New guidelines of FDA and EMA favour the usage of quality range tests. Moreover, it has recently been shown that simple range tests, such as the 3SD test, are flawed, since they do not control the agency risk of falsely declaring a non-biosimilar product as being biosimilar (Type I error). This has also been highlighted by regulators recently. In this contribution, we developed a novel bootstrapping test for assessing analytical similarity that overcomes current flaws of equivalence and range tests. The developed test shows the desired properties, that is, (i) similarity conditions can be easily defined, (ii) differences of mean and the variance between the biosimilar and the innovator can be studied simultaneously, and (iii) the Type I error of the test can be controlled at a low level, e.g. 5%, evenly along the entire similarity condition. Moreover, the test shows up to 10% higher mean power values in the similarity region compared to existing range tests that aim to control the Type I error. Hence, this test is superior to existing quality range tests and is perceived compliant with current regulatory requirements.

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic similarity evaluation between an insulin glargine biosimilar product and Lantus® in healthy subjects: Pharmacokinetic parameters of both parent insulin glargine and M1 were used as endpoints.

Insulin glargine is a long-acting insulin analog, which plays an important role in the treatment of diabetes mellitus. Biosimilar products of insulin glargine can provide patients with additional safe, high-quality, and potentially cost-effective options for treating diabetes. This article presents a randomized, double-blind, single-dose, two-treatment, four-period, replicate crossover, euglycemic clamp study which was designed to evaluate the PK and PD similarity between the recombinant insulin glargine developed by Wanbang (test) and Lantus® (reference) in healthy volunteers. Subjects received subcutaneous administration of the insulin glargine formulation (0.4 U/kg) on two occasions for the test and reference drug, respectively, and a 20% dextrose solution was infused at variable rate to clamp the blood glucose concentrations at 0.3 mmol/L below the subjects' fasting glucose for 24 h. Taking advantage of the improved sensitivity of the bioanalytical method applied and the solution of the matrix stability problem, the parent insulin glargine was determined in the vast majority of plasma samples using a fully validated UHPLC-MS/MS method. The PK characteristics of the parent insulin glargine were revealed for the first time: after subcutaneous injection, concentrations of the parent insulin glargine increased to a relative high level within 3 h, and then, a relatively flat concentration-time profile lasting for at least 12 h post-dose was observed. For the first time, the pharmacokinetic parameters of the parent insulin glargine were used as endpoints for similarity evaluation, which complied with the regulatory guidance better and made the similarity conclusion more powerful. The ratios of geometric means of all PK and PD endpoints were close to 100.00%. For the PK endpoints (AUC0-24h, Cmax, AUC0-12h, and AUC12-24h of the parent insulin glargine and its metabolite M1), the 90% confidence intervals of geometric mean ratios of test to reference were entirely contained within 80.00%-125.00%. For the PD endpoints [AUCGIR(0-24h), GIRmax, AUCGIR(0-12h), and AUCGIR(12-24h)], the 95% confidence intervals of geometric mean ratios of test to reference were entirely contained within 80.00%-125.00%. Based on the above mentioned results, it can be concluded that the PK and PD characteristics of the biosimilar drug developed by Wanbang are similar to those of Lantus.

Scientific Rationale for Waiving Clinical Efficacy Testing of Biosimilars.

After 18 years and the administration of billions of doses, there is little doubt about biosimilars' safety and efficacy. Yet, only 14 molecules in the EU and 9 in the US are available as biosimilars, among the 200+ targets, due mainly to the high development cost attributed to clinical efficacy testing after extensive analytical assessment, nonclinical testing, and clinical pharmacology comparisons. So far, none of the hundreds of clinical efficacy testing has failed because it cannot fail due to its lack of sensitivity for multiple reasons, as argued in this paper. This analysis is unique since biosimilars are the first category of products that are put to comparative testing as if these were new biological drugs. Clinical efficacy testing used to overcome differences in the analytical, nonclinical, and clinical pharmacology comparisons can lead to the approval of unsafe products. Only recently the regulatory agencies have begun to talk about this risk and shown their willingness to waive these studies. However, a clear change in the regulatory guidelines is required to change the mindset of all biosimilar stakeholders to bring a pivotal change in the availability of affordable biosimilars.

No two classes of biosimilars: Urgent advice to the US Congress and the FDA.

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: The United States is the only country with legislation to approve two classes of biosimilars. One has "no clinically meaningful difference" from the reference product, and when it is tested for switching and alternating, it can receive an interchangeable status. The objective of this review is to establish whether it is possible from the switching and alternating studies to evaluate additional safety or efficacy. METHODS: Analysed published data to ascertain if the testing with switching and alternating provide additional proof of safety or efficacy. Political and scientific rationale of creating a new class of biosimilars and how this affects the confidence in biosimilars. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: There is no safety or efficacy concern when switching or alternating biosimilars with the reference product. Unfortunately, the rationale for interchangeability is more political than scientific, and it has brought more confusion and mistrust in using biosimilars in the United States. WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: The US Congress is requested to remove the interchangeability clause from the Biological Price and Competition Act to enable faster acceptance of biosimilars and remove the threat of lack of confidence in the safety of biosimilars.

Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of a proposed tocilizumab biosimilar MSB11456 versus both the US-licensed and EU-approved products: a randomized, double-blind trial.

BACKGROUND: Tocilizumab is a recombinant humanized monoclonal immunoglobulin G1 antibody against the interleukin-6 receptor (IL-6 R). MSB11456 is a proposed tocilizumab biosimilar. OBJECTIVES: To assess the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic similarity of MSB11456 to both US-licensed and EU-approved tocilizumab. METHODS: Healthy adult volunteers (N = 685) received a single 162 mg subcutaneous injection of MSB11456, US-licensed tocilizumab, or EU-approved tocilizumab in this randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study. Blood samples were taken pre-dose and for up to 48 days post-dose. Primary endpoint pharmacokinetic parameters were analyzed using analysis of covariance. Secondary pharmacodynamic measures included serum-soluble IL-6 R and serum C-reactive protein. Safety data were analyzed descriptively. RESULTS: Pharmacokinetic equivalence (with all corresponding 90% confidence intervals for the geometric least squares mean ratios within the predefined 80.00% to 125.00% equivalence margin) was demonstrated between MSB11456 and both US-licensed and EU-approved tocilizumab, as well as between the reference products. Pharmacodynamic analyses demonstrated similarity of MSB11456 and both US-licensed and EU-approved tocilizumab, as well as between the reference products. Safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity were comparable between treatments. CONCLUSION: Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic similarity of MSB11456, US-licensed tocilizumab, and EU-approved tocilizumab were demonstrated, and the three products had comparable immunogenicity and safety, supporting MSB11456 as a biosimilar to tocilizumab.

Tocilizumab is a biologic drug that is used to treat autoimmune diseases, including rheumatoid arthritis. Biologic drugs are very important for the treatment of autoimmune diseases, but their costs limit accessibility. Therefore, the availability of biosimilars, which are biologics that are very similar in structure and function to an existing biologic drug, may provide a significant cost advantage for national healthcare programs and consumers. MSB11456 is a proposed tocilizumab biosimilar. Our study tested the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic similarity of MSB11456 to the approved formulations of tocilizumab in the US and EU (US-licensed and EU-approved tocilizumab) in a large group of healthy adults. Volunteers received a single 162 mg subcutaneous injection of MSB11456, US-licensed tocilizumab, or EU-approved tocilizumab in this randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study. Blood samples were taken before and regularly after the injection, and safety was monitored. We showed that the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of MSB11456, US-licensed and EU-approved tocilizumab were sufficiently similar to claim equivalence between the three products. Safety and immunogenicity were also comparable between the three treatments. These findings suggest that MSB11456 can be considered as a biosimilar to tocilizumab. Biosimilars have improved price competition and led to a reduction in the net costs of biologics, so tocilizumab biosimilars can be expected to contribute to this and potentially improve access to the best available care.

Phase I, randomized, double-blind, single-dose study to assess the pharmacokinetics, safety, and immunogenicity of the proposed biosimilar SCT630 and adalimumab in healthy Chinese subjects.

We aimed to compare the pharmacokinetics, safety, and immunogenicity of the adalimumab biosimilar SCT630 with those of its reference (adalimumab, Humira®). This study involved a randomized, double-blind, parallel-controlled design; healthy subjects (N = 146) were randomly distributed into two groups to receive a single-dose subcutaneous injection of 40 mg SCT630 or 40 mg adalimumab, with a 71-day follow up. The bioequivalence of the primary pharmacokinetic parameters (AUC0-t) and maximum observed serum concentration (Cmax) between SCT630 and adalimumab were the primary endpoints; safety and immunogenicity of SCT630 compared with those of adalimumab were the secondary endpoints. The geometric mean Cmax ratio of SCT630 to adalimumab and its 90% confidence interval (CI) were 116.02% and 108.66%-123.88%, AUC0-t ratio and 90% CI were 109.47% and 99.80%-120.08%, and AUC0-∞ ratio and 90% CI were 109.24% and 99.80%-120.78%. These PK parameters fulfilled the equivalence criterion of 80.00%-125.00%. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in 62 (84.9%) and 61 (83.6%) subjects; mild and moderate drug-related TEAEs were observed in 60 (82.2%) and 59 (80.8%) subjects in the adalimumab and SCT630 groups, respectively. On day 71, 69 (95.8%) subjects in the adalimumab group and 66 (93%) in the SCT630 group reported positive anti-drug antibodies. Among them, 15 (21.7%) and 11 (16.7%) subjects showed positive neutralizing antibodies, with no significant difference. SCT630 was well tolerated and demonstrated PK and safety profiles similar to adalimumab. The profiles support the initiation of further confirmatory study to demonstrate the clinical similarity of SCT630 to adalimumab.

Note on a stepwise procedure for rejecting at least k out of m hypotheses: A simple Holm-type formulation and proof.

Mielke et al. (2021) proposed a stepwise multiple testing procedure (MTP) based on marginal p-values for rejecting at least k out of m null hypotheses. Briefly, the MTP cannot reject less than k hypotheses, but this property improves the power to reject k or more hypotheses relative to the stepdown MTP of Holm (1979). Mielke et al. discussed why such an MTP is of interest in the context of biosimilarity developments. This article describes how a slight modification of Holm's simple direct arguments can be used as an alternative to the closed-testing arguments of Mielke et al. to show the strong control of the family-wise error rate. This modification is based on a Holm-type formulation of the rejection algorithm where each step involves a single ordered p-value. With k equal to one, the stepwise MTP reduces to Holm's stepdown MTP. The MTP is valid quite generally. A version of the MTP with weights for hypotheses is also described and discussed. As in the case without weights: (a) a modification of Holm's arguments can be used; (b) with k equal to one, the MTP reduces to Holm's MTP with weights; and (c) the MTP is valid quite generally.

Biosimilars: A futuristic fast-to-market advice to developers.

INTRODUCTION: Biosimilars are expected to improve the accessibility of biological drugs, a goal that has not been reached because of the high cost of development. This is about to change based on the history of biosimilars' safety, the regulatory agencies' flexibility in reducing the testing requirements, and the scientific advances in analytical methods to enable better assessment of biosimilarity. AREAS COVERED: Regulatory development plan supporting justification of fewer studies, including a selection criterion for the critical quality attributes, determination of the relevance of testing, and designing intelligent clinical testing protocols to reduce the time to market. EXPERT OPINION: The safety and efficacy of biosimilars can be established only based on analytical assessment and clinical pharmacology comparisons. Waivers of animal toxicology and pharmacodynamic studies and clinical efficacy and safety studies will not be required as these studies add little value in supporting the claim of biosimilarity.

Coupling of Trastuzumab chromatographic profiling with machine learning tools: A complementary approach for biosimilarity and stability assessment.

Biosimilar products present a growing opportunity to improve the global healthcare systems. The amount of accepted variability during the comparative assessments of biosimilar products introduces a significant challenge for both the biosimilar developers and the regulatory authorities. The aim of this study was to explore unsupervised machine learning tools as a mathematical aid for the interpretation and visualization of such comparability under control and stress conditions using data extracted from high throughput analytical techniques. For this purpose, a head-to-head analysis of the physicochemical characteristics of three Trastuzumab (TTZ) approved biosimilars and the originator product (Herceptin®) was performed. The studied quality attributes included the primary structure and identity by peptide mapping (PM) with reversed-phase chromatography-UV detection, size and charge profiles by stability-indicating size exclusion and cation exchange chromatography. Stress conditions involved pH and thermal stress. Principal component analysis (PCA) and two of the widely used cluster analysis tools, namely, K-means and Density-based Spatial Clustering of Applications with Noise (DBSCAN), were explored for clustering and feature representation of varied analytical datasets. It has been shown that the clustering patterns delineated by the used algorithms changed based on the included chromatographic profiles. The applied data analysis tools were found effective in revealing patterns of similarity and variability between i) intact and stressed as well as ii) originator and biosimilar samples.