covance biosimilars: nonclinical & clinical development challenges & considerations
Post on 20-Aug-2015
1.662 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Biosimilars: Nonclinical and Clinical Development Challenges and Considerations
2
Agenda
Regulatory Environment
Early Development Challenges• Regulatory landscape• Characterization• CMC and in vitro• Animal studies• Assays
Clinical Development Challenges• Phase I• Phase III
Conclusions
Regulatory Environment
4
Global Regulatory LandscapeEMA (The European Medicines Agency)
• Established EMA approval pathway: • 14 biosimilars approved* within the product classes of:
• Human growth hormone• Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) • Erythropoietin
US FDA • Biologics Price and Innovation Act passed in 2010
• Empowers FDA to develop standards to evaluate and approve biosimilars• FDA February 2012 draft guidance documents
• Risk-based “totality-of-the-evidence” approach
Health Canada• Guidance came out in 2010
Japan• Guideline came out in 2009
WHO• Guideline document came out in 2009
ROW• Argentina, Australia (amending), Brazil, Jordan, Korea, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore,
Taiwan, Turkey, Venezuela – Guidelines available• Colombia, Cuba, India, Mexico, South Africa, and Thailand – Draft Guidelines available
Biosimilar Regulatory Guidance documents and discussions are on-going and expanding globally.
5
Regulatory Environment - EU
Established EMA approval pathway• 14 biosimilars approved within the product classes of:
• Human growth hormone• Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) • Erythropoietin
Key EMA guidance documents• “Overarching” guideline on similar biological medicinal products
• From 2005, currently being updated
• Guideline on similar biological medicinal products containing biotechnology-derived proteins as active substances: quality issues
• From 2005
• Guideline on similar biological medicinal products containing biotechnology-derived proteins as active substances: nonclinical and clinical issues
• From 2005, currently being updated to incorporate risk-related approaches
6
Regulatory Environment – US
FDA approval pathway established
Biologics Price and Innovation Act passed in 2010 empowers FDA to develop standards to evaluate and approve biosimilars
FDA February 2012 draft guidance documents
• Scientific Considerations in Demonstrating Biosimilarity to a Reference Product:
- Risk-based “totality-of-the-evidence” approach
• Quality Considerations in Demonstrating Biosimilarity to a Reference Protein Product:- Overview of analytical factors to consider, includes analytical, physico-
chemical and biological characterization
• Biosimilars: Questions and Answers Regarding Implementation of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009:
- Provides answers to common questions that may arise in the early stagesof product development.
7
Regulatory Environment - ICH Regions
How do the requirements compare?
• US, EU and Japan all require comparability with reference product
• Reference product must be registered under the Regulatory jurisdiction• In EU this is law• FDA will consider non-US registered reference product with studies to bridge
to US reference• Japan requires Japanese registered product
• Early engagement with Regulatory Authority is vital
• Extrapolation of indications will be considered
• At least one Phase III comparable efficacy study (usually with equivalence design) is required for licence
8
Poll Question 1
Can extensive in vitro testing of reference from various regions support single-region reference in clinical studies?
A. Yes
B. No, clinical studies needed with all reference product
C. Not sure
9
Regulatory Comparability PackageExtensive Analytical & In Vitro
• Extensive analytical characterization versus reference product(s)• If mAb
• Specificity & affinity to epitope• Potency using CDC, ADCC &/or functional in vitro cell-based assays
Limited in vivo Nonclinical• PK/PD studies, Toxicology (SD/MD), and Immunogenicity studies
(requirement for nonhuman primates?)
Limited Clinical• Phase I
• Comparability of PK/PD & Immunogenicity in volunteers or patients at reference dose and regimen for targeted indications
• Phase III• Comparability for safety and efficacy (single pivotal) based on PK/PD, surrogate
endpoints and clinical outcomes
Extensive Post-Approval • REMS and pharmacovigilance planning including patient registry(ies) for
assessment of incidence of specific safety issues
Early Development Challenges
11
Development Challenges
Regulatory, manufacturing and marketing complexities
Biosimilar must be highly similar to innovator biologic, which can be difficult to demonstrate as all data for innovator will be lacking
A comparability exercise has to be followed with the innovator product at all levels of product development
• Physico-chemical characterization
• Biological activity
• Preclinical in vivo comparability
• Phase I PK and safety
It’s all about comparability
12
Regulatory Landscape
Harmonization of regulatory expectations
• Most regulatory regions are in general agreement
• Main issue is reference material sourcing
Discuss plans early
• Early engagement with the regulators is key (especially in the USA)
• Characterization differences need to be fully understood and explained
13
Characterization
Comprehensive Characterization• Physicochemical as well as biological
• Multiple batches of innovator spanning a number of years
• Understand innovator variability
• Specification changes over life of product
• No label change
14
CMC and In Vitro
Detailed characterization of biosimilar and reference product needed before clinical trial work with consideration for:
• Physical properties
• Amino acid sequence
• High-order structure and post-translation form
• Product-related impurities (aggregates, oxidized forms, deaminated forms)
• Process-related impurities and contaminants (host cell protein, residual genomic DNA, reagents, downstream impurities)
• Receptor-binding or cell-based assays
15
CMC and In Vitro
Recommendations• High resolution analysis
• Multiple methods
• Multiple batches
• Characterize reference over a number of batches (years) to understand specification range
• Confirm reference product labelled concentration or potency for each batch
16
CMC and In Vitro
Detailed characterization of biosimilar and reference product needed before clinical trial work with consideration for:
17
CMC and In Vitro
Cell-based assays
• Critical to assess the biological activity of the biosimilar
• Related to the actual function• Target binding
• Pharmacological effect e.g. proliferation inhibition
• mAb effector function (ADCC, CDC or FC-binding)
18
CMC and In Vitro
Cell-based assays• Can be based on batch release assay
• Takes time to setup and validate
• May be possible to use as a basis for NAb assay (consider matrix effects)
• Will be required to support Phase III and pharmacovigilance
19
Animal Studies
When to perform these?
• Regulators suggest a step-wise approach• Characterization differences need to be identified
and fully explained • If differences are seen and not adequately
characterized then in vivo studies may be required • Use of novel excipient in formulation may
necessitate in vivo studies• Use of NHPs not recommended• PK/PD endpoints rather than toxicity?
20
Animal Studies
Examples
• rHu-EPO• 28d comparative multiple dose study in rat• Multiple dose levels to assess dose response• Primary endpoint was PK/PD but organs also assessed• No toxicity seen
• mAb• Primate toxicology study• Single dose level of innovator and biosimilar• 28d repeat dose toxicology study• No toxicity seen
21
Animal Studies
Recommendations• In vivo efficacy studies
• Very useful if models exist• Models may be proprietary and thus difficult to obtain
• Where good PD marker exists• Useful to have comparative PK/PD and dose response• May take organs for assessment but not necessarily in the first
instance• ADA samples taken but not routinely tested unless effect on PK/PD
• Where no PD marker exists• Consider relevance of animal testing, especially if NHP is only
relevant species• If performed then minimal groups and maximum of 28d dosing
22
Poll Question 2
Do comparative toxicology studies add to the body of evidence in determining comparability?
A. Definitely
B. Minimally
C. Not at all
D. Not sure
23
Immunogenicity
Relative Immunogenicity
• Difficult to show statistical significance in animal studies
• Applicability to human?
• Useful in considering differences in TK/PK or PD
Immunogenicity recommendations
• ADA assay developed for animal studies but not necessarily validated in first instance
• Samples taken but not analyzed unless TK/PK or PD effect seen
• Used to interpret difference in TK/PK or PD but not for prediction of human immunogenicity
24
Immunochemistry Assays
Option 1: Separate Assays for innovator/reference:
- Innovator Calibration standards & QCs- Reference Calibration standards & QCs
Option 2: Single Assay forinnovator/reference:
- Single Innovator Calibration curve with reference and innovator QCs
General principles for demonstration of bioequivalence are applicable:• Ratio analysis of mean result should be between 0.80 and 1.25 to
demonstrate bioequivalence
• This criteria should be demonstrated for validated assays using either option 1 or 2
Advantages of Option 2: • Less resource intensive • Blinding can be maintained
25
Poll Question 3
Do you always aim for a single assay for PK/TK assessment?
A. Yes
B. No, always aim for separate assays
C. First test feasibility of single assay
D. Not sure
Clinical Development Challenges
ClinicalDesign trials with right endpoints and right population
Difficulty in identifying sites and patients in Phase I and III
Can take a long time and a lot of patients
Phase IPhase I studies supporting dose(s) for targeted indicationsPhase I Study:
• Healthy volunteers vs patients• Ethics committee considerations• Part 1 - Initial safety and comparative PK
arms (at labeled dose)• Part 2 - Comparative PK/PD, Immunogenicity
and Safety/Efficacy run in parallel to Phase III study submissions
• N=40 for Phase III start & Interim Analysis for PK/PD powering
Difficulties• Cross-over designs • Sentinel dosing group for Phase I
Phase III• Single Pivotal (therapeutic category)• Extrapolatability within category• Leverage established PD and Surrogate
endpoint(s)• PK/PD assessments with shorter cycles of
therapy• Immunogenicity determined with full
regimen of therapy• “Interchangeability” not yet addressed by
FDA
Conclusions
29
Conclusions
Characterization is absolutely critical
Animal toxicology studies add little value but may be required by certain regulators. Animal studies should focus on efficacy models and PK/PD where possible
Relative immunogenicity is assessed most appropriately in clinical studies and post-marketing
Planning and multidisciplinary approach is key
30
Drug Development Solutions from Discovery Through Commercialization
Reimbursement
Post-Marketing Commitments
Health Economics Assessment
Clinical Development: Special Populations
Outcomes/PE Studies
Clinical Development: Target Population
Central Labs Data: Safety and Genotyping
Phase I to Phase III Clinical Trials
Serum ProductionClinical Feasibility
DEVELOPMENT COMMERCIALIZATIONDISCOVERY
PHASE IVRESEARCH PRECLINICAL PHASE I PHASE III
Molecular Development (Program Management & Clinical)
Efficacy Model Development/Biomarker Development
Regulatory Strategy, EMA/FDA Documentation Prep & Meeting Attendance, CTA/IND/BLA Support and Submission
Viral Clearance
Immunogenicity, PK, TK
Process Development Support, Biomanufacturing Support, Biosafety Testing
Pharmacokinetics/Toxicity Tissue Cross Reactivity
In vivo/In vitro Biopotency
Immunotoxicity: CDC & ADCC
Physicochem & Biological Characterization
Stability and Release
Covance is uniquely positioned to be a valued partner at every stage in the biosimilar drug development process
top related