Pharmaceutical Medicine

, Volume 32, Issue 2, pp 103–121 | Cite as

Immunogenicity Assessment of Biosimilars

Review Article

Abstract

Biosimilar versions of original therapeutic proteins and peptides are approved on the basis of an extensive demonstration of analytical similarity to the originator product, including in-vitro tests for function. Comparative clinical evaluation is also performed in the pre-authorisation phase to confirm that the analytical similarity has led to comparable safety and efficacy, including immunogenicity. This article reviews the regulatory standards applicable to the assessment of relative immunogenicity of biosimilar candidates for marketing authorisation in the European Union and USA. The most critical elements for the design of an effective product-specific strategy to exclude potential incremental immunogenicity are discussed, and case examples are presented to illustrate how data are assessed by regulatory authorities.

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Funding

No funding was received for the preparation of this review.

Conflict of interest

Tiina Reinivuori, Pekka Kurki and Paul Chamberlain have no conflicts of interest directly relevant to the content of this article.

References

  1. 1.
    Harding FA, Stickler MM, Razo J, DuBridge RB. The immunogenicity of humanized and fully human antibodies: residual immunogenicity resides in the CDR regions. MAbs. 2010;2(3):256–65.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Casadevall N, Eckhardt K-U, Rossert J. Epoetin-induced autoimmune pure red cell aplasia. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2005;16(Suppl. 1):S67–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fineberg SE, Kawabata TT, Finco-Kent D, Fountaine RJ, Finch GL, Krasner AS. Immunological responses to exogenous insulin. Endocr Rev. 2007;28(6):625–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Soelberg-Sorensen DA, Cohen J, Coles A, Confavreux C, Fox E, Hartung H, Havrdova E, Selmaj K, Weiner H, Miller T, Twyman C, Lake S, Margolin D, Richards S, Sung C, Panzara M, Compston A. Immunogenicity of alemtuzumab treatment in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) patients in the CARE-MS II Study (P07.101). Neurology. 2013;80(7 Suppl.):P07–101.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Luo Y, Lu Z, Raso SW, Entrican C, Tangarone B. Dimers and multimers of monoclonal IgG1 exhibit higher in vitro binding affinities to Fc γ receptors. MAbs. 2009;1(5):491–504.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Seidl A, Hainzl O, Richter M, Fischer R, Böhm S, Deutel B, Hartinger M, Windisch J, Casadevall N, London GM, Macdougall I. Tungsten-induced denaturation and aggregation of epoetin-alfa during primary packaging as a cause of immunogenicity. Pharm Res. 2012;29(6):1454–67.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Joubert MK, Hokom M, Eakin C, Zhou L, Deshpande M, Baker MP, Goletz TJ, Kerwin BA, Chirmule N, Narhi LO, Jawa V. Highly aggregated antibody therapeutics can enhance the in vitro innate and late-stage T-cell immune responses. J Biol Chem. 2012;287:25266–79.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Filipe V, Jiskoot W, Basmeleh AH, Halim A, Schellekens H, Brinks V. Immunogenicity of different stressed IgG monoclonal antibody formulations in immune tolerant transgenic mice. MAbs. 2012;4:740–52.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ahmadi M, Bryson CJ, Cloake E, Welch K, Filipe V, Romeijn S, Hawe A, Jiskoot W, Baker MP, Fogg MH. Small amounts of sub-visible aggregates enhance the immunogenic potential of monoclonal antibody therapeutics. Pharm Res. 2015;32:1383–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Moussa EM, Kotarek J, Blum JS, Marszal E, Topp EM. Physical characterization and innate immunogenicity of aggregated intravenous immunoglobulin (IGIV) in an in vitro cell-based model. Pharm Res. 2016;33:1736–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    European Medicines Agency and the European Commission. Biosimilars in the EU: information guide for healthcare professionals. 2017. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Leaflet/2017/05/WC500226648.pdf. Accessed 8 Jan 2018.
  12. 12.
    European Medicines Agency. Find medicine; European public assessment reports. http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/medicines/landing/epar_search.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac058001d124. Accessed 8 Jan 2018.
  13. 13.
    FDA news release: FDA approves first biosimilar for the treatment of cancer.http://www.fda.gov/newsevents/newsroom/pressannouncements/ucm576112.htm. Accessed 8 Jan 2018.
  14. 14.
    Rosenberg AS. Immunogenicity of biological therapeutics: a hierarchy of concerns. In: Brown F, Mire-Sluis AR, editors. Immunogenicity of therapeutic biological products, vol. 112. Basel: Karger; 2003. p. 15–21.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Büttel IC, Chamberlain P, Chowers Y, Ehmann F, Greinacher A, Jefferis R, Kramer D, Kropshofer H, Lloyd P, Lubiniecki A, Krause R, Mire-Sluis A, Platts-Mills T, Ragheb JA, Reipert BM, Schellekens H, Seitz R, Stas P, Subramanyam M, Thorpe R, Trouvin JH, Weise M, Windisch J, Schneider CK. Taking immunogenicity assessment of therapeutic proteins to the next level. Biologicals. 2011;39(2):100–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Guideline on immunogenicity assessment of therapeutic proteins (EMEA/CHMP/BMWP/14327/2006 Rev 1). Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP). 18 May 2017. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2017/06/WC500228861.pdf. Accessed 8 Jan 2018.
  17. 17.
    Chamberlain P. The role of the immunogenicity evaluation for biosimilars. Chapter 12. In: Endrenyi L, Declerck P-J, Chow S-C, editors. Biosimilar drug product development. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2017. p. 323–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Calvo B, Zuñiga L. Therapeutic monoclonal antibodies: strategies and challenges for biosimilars development. Curr Med Chem. 2012;19(26):4445–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wang J, Chow S-C. On the regulatory approval pathway of biosimilar products. Pharmaceuticals. 2012;5:353–68.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Guideline on similar biological medicinal products. CHMP/437/04 Rev 1. Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP). 23 October 2014. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2014/10/WC500176768.pdf. Accessed 8 Jan 2018.
  21. 21.
    Guideline on similar biological medicinal products containing biotechnology-derived proteins as active substance: quality issues (revision 1). EMA/CHMP/BWP/247713/2012. Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP). 22 May 2014. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2014/06/WC500167838.pdf. Accessed 8 Jan 2018.
  22. 22.
    Guideline on similar biological medicinal products containing biotechnology-derived proteins as active substance: non-clinical and clinical issues. EMEA/CHMP/BMWP/42832/2005 Rev1. Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP). 18 December 2014. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2015/01/WC500180219.pdf. Accessed 8 Jan 2018.
  23. 23.
    Guideline on immunogenicity assessment of monoclonal antibodies intended for in vivo clinical use (EMA/CHMP/BMWP/86289/2010). Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP). 24 May 2012. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2012/06/WC500128688.pdf. Accessed 8 Jan 2018.
  24. 24.
    Guidance for industry: scientific considerations in demonstrating biosimilarity to a reference product. FDA, April 2015. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM291128.pdf. Accessed 8 Jan 2018.
  25. 25.
    Guidance for industry: clinical pharmacology data to support a demonstration of biosimilarity to a reference product, FDA, December 2016. https://www.fda.gov/downloads/drugs/guidancecomplianceregulatoryinformation/guidances/ucm397017.pdf. Accessed 8 Jan 2018.
  26. 26.
    Draft guidance for industry: assay development and validation for immunogenicity testing of therapeutic protein products, FDA. April 2016. https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/Guidances/UCM192750.pdf. Accessed 8 Jan 2018.
  27. 27.
    Guidance of industry: immunogenicity assessment of therapeutic protein products. FDA. August 2014. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/drugs/guidances/ucm338856.pdf. Accessed 8 Jan 2018.
  28. 28.
    Guideline on non-clinical and clinical development of similar biological medicinal products containing recombinant human insulin and insulin analogues. EMEA/CHMP/BMWP/32775/2005_Rev. 1. Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP). 26 February 2015. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2015/03/WC500184161.pdf. Accessed 8 Jan 2018.
  29. 29.
    Guideline on non-clinical and clinical development of similar biological medicinal products containing low-molecular-weight-heparins. EMEA/CHMP/BMWP/118264/2007 Rev. 1. Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP). 10 November 2016. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2016/11/WC500217126.pdf. Accessed 8 Jan 2018.
  30. 30.
    Guideline on non-clinical and clinical development of similar biological medicinal products containing recombinant erythropoietins (revision). EMEA/CHMP/BMWP/301636/2008 Corr.* Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP). 18 March 2010. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2010/04/WC500089474.pdf. Accessed 8 Jan 2018.
  31. 31.
    Immunogenicity-related considerations for low molecular weight heparin. Guidance for industry, CDER, February 2016. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM392194.pdf. Accessed 8 Jan 2018.
  32. 32.
    World Health Organization. Guidelines for evaluation of similar biotherapeutic products (SBPs). 2010. Available from: http://www.who.int/biologicals/areas/biological_therapeutics/BIOTHERAPEUTICS_FOR_WEB_22APRIL2010.pdf. [Accessed 8 Jan 2018].
  33. 33.
    World Health Organization. Guidelines on evaluation of monoclonal antibodies as similar biotherapeutic products (SBPs). 2016. http://www.who.int/biologicals/biotherapeutics/WHO_TRS_1004_web_Annex_2.pdf?ua=1. Accessed 8 Jan 2018.
  34. 34.
    Cai XY, Thomas J, Cullen C, Gouty D. Challenges of developing and validating immunogenicity assays to support comparability studies for biosimilar drug development. Bioanalysis. 2012;4(17):2169–77.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Jahn EM, Schneider CK. How to systematically evaluate immunogenicity of therapeutic proteins: regulatory considerations. N Biotechnol. 2009;25(5):280–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Pineda C, Castañeda Hernández G, Jacobs IA, Alvarez DF, Carini C. Assessing the immunogenicity of biopharmaceuticals. Biodrugs. 2016;30:195–206.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wadhwa M, Knezevic I, Kang HN, Thorpe R. Immunogenicity assessment of biotherapeutic products: an overview of assays and their utility. Biologicals. 2015;43(5):298–306.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Gunn GR, Sealey DCF, Jamali F, Meibohm B, Ghosh S, Shankar G. From the bench to clinical practice: understanding the challenges and uncertainties in immunogenicity testing for biopharmaceuticals. Clin Exp Immunol. 2016;184(2):137–46.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Vande Casteele N. Assays for measurement of TNF antagonists in practice. Frontline Gastroenterol. 2017;8:236–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Chamberlain P. Assessing immunogenicity of biosimilar therapeutic monoclonal antibodies: regulatory and bioanalytical considerations. Bioanalysis. 2013;5(5):561–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Liu PM, Zou L, Sadhu C, Shen WD, Nock S. Comparative immunogenicity assessment: a critical consideration for biosimilar development. Bioanalysis. 2015;7(3):373–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Cai XY, Wake A, Gouty D. Analytical and bioanalytical assay challenges to support comparability studies for biosimilar drug development. Bioanalysis. 2013;5(5):517–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
  44. 44.
    Smith A, Manoli H, Jaw S, Frutoz K, Epstein AL, Khawli LA, Theil FP. Unraveling the effect of immunogenicity on the PK/PD, efficacy, and safety of therapeutic proteins. J Immunol Res. 2016;2016:2342187.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Hofmann L, Forschner A, Loquai C, Goldinger SM, Zimmer L, Ugurel S, Schmidgen MI, Gutzmer R, Utikal JS, Göppner D, Hassel JC, Meier F, Tietze JK, Thomas I, Weishaupt C, Leverkus M, Wahl R, Dietrich U, Garbe C, Kirchberger MC, Eigentler T, Berking C, Gesierich A, Krackhardt AM, Schadendorf D, Schuler G, Dummer R, Heinzerling LM. Cutaneous, gastrointestinal, hepatic, endocrine, and renal side-effects of anti-PD-1 therapy. Eur J Cancer. 2016;60:190–209.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Wu LC, Zarrin AA. The production and regulation of IgE by the immune system. Nat Rev Immunol. 2014;14(4):247–59.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Wadhwa M, Mytych DT, Bird C, Barger T, Dougall T, Han H, Rigsby P, Kromminga A, Thorpe R. Establishment of the first WHO erythropoietin antibody reference panel: report of an international collaborative study. J Immunol Methods. 2016;2016(435):32–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Aarden L, Ruuls SR, Wolbink G. Immunogenicity of anti-tumor necrosis factor antibodies: toward improved methods of anti-antibody measurement. Curr Opin Immunol. 2008;20:431–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Bloem K, van Leeuwen A, Verbeek G, Nurmohamed MT, Wolbink GJ, van der Kleij D, Rispens T. Systematic comparison of drug-tolerant assays for anti-drug antibodies in a cohort of adalimumab-treated rheumatoid arthritis patients. J Immunol Methods. 2015;418:29–38.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Kaur P, Chow V, Zhang N, Moxness M, Kaliyaperumal A, Markus R. A randomised, single-blind, single-dose, three-arm, parallel-group study in healthy subjects to demonstrate pharmacokinetic equivalence of ABP 501 and adalimumab. Ann Rheum Dis. 2017;76:526–33.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Cohen S, Genovese MC, Choy E, Perez-Ruiz F, Matsumoto A, Pavelka K, Pablos JL, Rizzo W, Hrycaj P, Zhang N, Shergy W, Kaur P. Efficacy and safety of the biosimilar ABP 501 compared with adalimumab in patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis: a randomised, double-blind, phase III equivalence study. Ann Rheum Dis. 2017;76:1679–87.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    van Schouwenburg PA, Krieckaert CL, Rispens T, Aarden L, Wolbink GJ, Wouters D. Long-term measurement of anti-adalimumab using pH-shift-anti-idiotype antigen binding test shows predictive value and transient antibody formation. Ann Rheum Dis. 2013;72(10):1680–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Community register of medicinal products for human use. http://ec.europa.eu/health/documents/community-register/html/h256.htm. Accessed 8 Jan 2018.
  54. 54.
  55. 55.
  56. 56.
  57. 57.
  58. 58.
  59. 59.
  60. 60.
  61. 61.
    Wang YM, Fang L, Zhou L, Wang J, Ahn HY. A survey of applications of biological products for drug interference of immunogenicity assays. Pharm Res. 2012;29(12):3384–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    van Schouwenburg PA, Bartelds GM, Hart MH, Aarden L, Wolbink GJ, Wouters D. A novel method for the detection of antibodies to adalimumab in the presence of drug reveals “hidden” immunogenicity in rheumatoid arthritis patients. J Immunol Methods. 2010;362(1–2):82–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Hart MH, de Vrieze H, Wouters D, Wolbink GJ, Killestein J, de Groot ER, Aarden LA, Rispens TJ. Differential effect of drug interference in immunogenicity assays. J Immunol Methods. 2011;372(1–2):196–203.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Bourdage JS, Cook CA, Farrington DL, Chain JS, Konrad RJ. An affinity capture elution (ACE) assay for detection of anti-drug antibody to monoclonal antibody therapeutics in the presence of high levels of drug. J Immunol Methods. 2007;327:10–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Smith HW, Butterfield A, Sun D. Detection of antibodies against therapeutic proteins in the presence of residual therapeutic protein using a solid-phase extraction with acid dissociation (SPEAD) sample treatment prior to ELISA. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2007;49(3):230–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Tatarewicz S, Miller JM, Swanson SJ, Moxness MS. Rheumatoid factor interference in immunogenicity assays for human monoclonal antibody therapeutics. J Immunol Methods. 2010;357:10–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
  68. 68.
    Wu B, Chung S, Jiang X-R, McNally J, Pedras-Vasconcelos J, Pillutla R, White JT, Xu Y, Gupta S. Strategies to determine assay format for the assessment of neutralizing antibody responses to biotherapeutics. AAPS J. 2016;18(6):1335–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Bartelds GM, Wijbrandts CA, Nurmohamed MT, Stapel S, Lems WF, Aarden L, Dijkmans BA, Tak PP, Wolbink GJ. Clinical response to adalimumab: relationship to anti-adalimumab antibodies and serum adalimumab concentrations in rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2007;66(7):921–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Karmiris K, Paintaud G, Noman M, Magdelaine-Beuzelin C, Ferrante M, Degenne D, Claes K, Coopman T, Van Schuerbeek N, Van Assche G, Vermeire S, Rutgeerts P. Influence of trough serum levels and immunogenicity on long-term outcome of adalimumab therapy in Crohn’s disease. Gastroenterology. 2009;137(5):1628–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Perez Ruixo JJ, Ma P, Chow AT. The utility of modeling and simulation approaches to evaluate immunogenicity effect on the therapeutic protein pharmacokinetics. AAPS J. 2013;15(1):172–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Wolbink GJ, Aarden LA, Dijkmans BA. Dealing with immunogenicity of biologicals: assessment and clinical relevance. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2009;21(3):211–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Bartelds GM, Krieckaert CL, Nurmohamed MT, van Schouwenburg PA, Lems WF, Twisk JW, Dijkmans BA, Aarden L, Wolbink GJ. Development of anti-drug antibodies against adalimumab and association with disease activity and treatment failure during long-term follow-up. JAMA. 2011;305(14):1460–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Chirmule N, Jawa V, Meibohm B. Immunogenicity to therapeutic proteins: impact on PK/PD and efficacy. AAPS J. 2012;14(2):296–302.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Getts DR, Getts MT, McCarthy DP, Chastain EM, Miller SD. Have we overestimated the benefits of human(ized) antibodies? MAbs. 2010;2(6):682–94.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Koren E, Smith HW, Shores E, Shankar G, Finco-Kent D, Rup B, Barrett YC, Devanarayan V, Gorovits B, Gupta S, Parish T, Quarmby V, Moxness M, Swanson SJ, Taniguchi G, Zuckerman LA, Stebbins CC, Mire-Sluis A. Recommendations on risk-based strategies for detection and characterization of antibodies against biotechnology products. J Immunol Methods. 2008;333(1–2):1–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Yin L, Chen X, Vicini P, Rup B, Hickling TP. Therapeutic outcomes, assessments, risk factors and mitigation efforts of immunogenicity of therapeutic protein products. Cell Immunol. 2015;295(2):118–26.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Chamberlain P. Presenting an immunogenicity risk assessment to regulatory agencies. Chapter 13. In: van de Weert M, Horn Møller E, editors. Immunogenicity of biopharmaceuticals. Springer: New York; 2008. p. 239–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Chamberlain P. Addressing immunogenicity-related risks in an integrated manner. Regul Aff Pharma. 2011;10–5.Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Workshop on immunogenicity assessment of biotechnology-derived therapeutic proteins. 2016. http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/news_and_events/events/2016/01/event_detail_001257.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac058004d5c3. Accessed 8 Jan 2018.
  81. 81.
    Manivannan V, Decker WW, Stead LG, Li JT, Campbell RL. Visual representation of National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease and Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Network criteria for anaphylaxis. Int J Emerg Med. 2009;2:3–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Shankar G, Arkin S, Cocea L, Devanarayan V, Kirshner S, Kromminga A, Quarmby V, Richards S, Schneider CK, Subramanyam M, Swanson S, Verthelyi D, Yim S, American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists. Assessment and reporting of the clinical immunogenicity of therapeutic proteins and peptides-harmonized terminology and tactical recommendations. AAPS J. 2014;16(4):658–73.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Rup B, Pallardy M, Sikkema D, Albert T, Allez M, Broet P, Carini C, Creeke P, Davidson J, De Vries N, Finco D, Fogdell-Hahn A, Havrdova E, Hincelin-Mery A, C Holland M, H Jensen PE, Jury EC, Kirby H, Kramer D, Lacroix-Desmazes S, Legrand J, Maggi E, Maillère B, Mariette X, Mauri C, Mikol V, Mulleman D, Oldenburg J, Paintaud G, ABIRISK Consortium. R Pedersen C, Ruperto N, Seitz R, Spindeldreher S, Deisenhammer F. Standardizing terms, definitions and concepts for describing and interpreting unwanted immunogenicity of biopharmaceuticals: recommendations of the Innovative Medicines Initiative ABIRISK consortium. Clin Exp Immunol. 2015;181(3):385–400.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
  85. 85.
  86. 86.
  87. 87.
    Orencia II-97 extension of indication variation assessment report. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Assessment_Report_-_Variation/human/000701/WC500215995.pdf. Accessed 8 Jan 2018.
  88. 88.
  89. 89.
  90. 90.
  91. 91.
    Commission registry. Benepali. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/health/documents/community-register/html/h1074.htm. Accessed 8 Jan 2018.
  92. 92.
    Emery P, Vencovský J, Sylwestrzak A, Leszczyński P, Porawska W, Baranauskaite A, Tseluyko V, Zhdan VM, Stasiuk B, Milasiene R, Barrera Rodriguez AA, Cheong SY, Ghil J. A phase III randomised, double-blind, parallel-group study comparing SB4 with etanercept reference product in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite methotrexate therapy. Ann Rheum Dis. 2017;76(1):51–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Weise M, Kurki P, Wolff-Holz E, Bielsky MC, Schneider CK. Biosimilars: the science of extrapolation. Blood. 2014;124(22):3191–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    A clinician’s guide to biosimilars in oncology: understanding the science of extrapolation and interchangeability. ESMO 2017 Industry Satellite Symposium Madrid September 8, 2017. Dr. Elena Wolff-Holz. Chair of the European Medicines Agency’s Biosimilar Medicinal Products Working Party (BMWP). http://www.medicinesforeurope.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/E.-Wolff-Holz_ESMO-satellite_2017_release.pdf. Accessed 8 Jan 2018.
  95. 95.
  96. 96.
  97. 97.
  98. 98.
  99. 99.
    Lee H. Is extrapolation of the safety and efficacy data in one indication to another appropriate for biosimilars? AAPS J. 2014;16(1):22–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Fiorino G, Danese S. The biosimilar road in inflammatory bowel disease: the right way? Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2014;28(3):465–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Danese S, Gomollon F, Governing Board and Operational Board of ECCO. ECCO position statement: the use of biosimilar medicines in the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). J Crohns Colitis. 2013;7(7):586–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Smits LJ, Derikx LA, de Jong DJ, Boshuizen RS, van Esch AA, Drenth JP, Hoentjen F. Clinical outcomes following a switch from Remicade® to the biosimilar CT-P13 in inflammatory bowel disease patients: a prospective observational cohort study. J Crohns Colitis. 2016;10(11):1287–93.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Buer LC, Moum BA, Cvancarova M, Warren DJ, Medhus AW, Høivik ML. Switching from Remicade® to Remsima® is well tolerated and feasible: a prospective, open-label study. J Crohns Colitis. 2017;11(3):297–304.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Razanskaite V, Bettey M, Downey L, Wright J, Callaghan J, Rush M, Whiteoak S, Ker S, Perry K, Underhill C, Efrem E, Ahmed I, Cummings F. Biosimilar infliximab in inflammatory bowel disease: outcomes of a managed switching programme. J Crohns Colitis. 2017;11(6):690–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Martelli L, Peyrin-Biroulet L. Efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of biosimilars in inflammatory bowel diseases: a systematic review. Curr Med Chem. 2016;23.  https://doi.org/10.2174/0929867323666161014153346.
  106. 106.
    Danese S, Fiorino G, Raine T, Ferrante M, Kemp K, Kierkus J, Lakatos PL, Mantzaris G, van der Woude J, Panes J, Peyrin-Biroulet L. ECCO position statement on the use of biosimilars for inflammatory bowel disease: an update. J Crohns Colitis. 2017;11(1):26–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Gecse KB, Lovász BD, Farkas K, Banai J, Bene L, Gasztonyi B, Golovics PA, Kristóf T, Lakatos L, Csontos ÁA, Juhász M, Nagy F, Palatka K, Papp M, Patai Á, Lakner L, Salamon Á, Szamosi T, Szepes Z, Tóth GT, Vincze Á, Szalay B, Molnár T, Lakatos PL. Efficacy and safety of the biosimilar infliximab CT-P13 treatment in inflammatory bowel diseases: a prospective, multicentre, nationwide cohort. J Crohns Colitis. 2016;10(2):133–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Chingcuanco F, Segal JB, Kim SC, Alexander GC. Bioequivalence of biosimilar tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitors compared with their reference biologics: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med. 2016;165(8):565–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Jørgensen KK, Olsen IC, Goll GL, Lorentzen M, Bolstad N, Haavardsholm EA, Lundin KEA, Mørk C, Jahnsen J. Kvien TK; NOR-SWITCH Study Group. Switching from originator infliximab to biosimilar CT-P13 compared with maintained treatment with originator infliximab (NOR-SWITCH): a 52-week, randomised, double-blind, non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2017;389(10086):2304–16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Ruiz-Argüello MB, Maguregui A, Ruiz Del Agua A, Pascual-Salcedo D, Martínez-Feito A, Jurado T, Plasencia C, Balsa A, Llinares-Tello F, Rosas J, Torres N, Martínez A, Nagore D. Antibodies to infliximab in Remicade-treated rheumatic patients show identical reactivity towards biosimilars. Ann Rheum Dis. 2016;75(9):1693–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Ben-Horin S, Yavzori M, Benhar I, Fudim E, Picard O, Ungar B, Lee S, Kim S, Eliakim R, Chowers Y. Cross-immunogenicity: antibodies to infliximab in Remicade-treated patients with IBD similarly recognise the biosimilar Remsima. Gut. 2016;65(7):1132–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Kay J, Schoels MM, Dörner T, Emery P, Kvien TK, Smolen JS, Breedveld FC, Task Force on the Use of Biosimilars to Treat Rheumatological Diseases. Consensus-based recommendations for the use of biosimilars to treat rheumatological diseases. Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77(2):165–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Inotai A, Prins CPJ, Csanádi M, Vitezic D, Codreanu C, Kaló Z. Is there a reason for concern or is it just hype? A systematic literature review of the clinical consequences of switching from originator biologics to biosimilars. Expert Opin Biol Ther. 2017;17(8):915–26.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
  115. 115.
    US Food and Drug Administration. Considerations in demonstrating interchangeability with a reference product. Guidance for industry. January 2017. https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM537135.pdf. Accessed 8 Jan 2018.
  116. 116.
    Blackwell K, Semiglazov V, Krasnozhon D, Davidenko I, Nelyubina L, Nakov R, Stiegler G, Singh P, Schwebig A, Kramer S, Harbeck N. Comparison of EP2006, a filgrastim biosimilar, to the reference: a phase III, randomized, double-blind clinical study in the prevention of severe neutropenia in patients with breast cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Ann Oncol. 2015;26(9):1948–53.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Griffiths CEM, Thaçi D, Gerdes S, Arenberger P, Pulka G, Kingo K, Weglowska J, the EGALITY Study Group, Hattebuhr N, Poetzl J, Woehling H, Wuerth G, Afonso M. The EGALITY study: a confirmatory, randomized, double-blind study comparing the efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of GP2015, a proposed etanercept biosimilar, vs. the originator product in patients with moderate-to-severe chronic plaque-type psoriasis. Br J Dermatol. 2017;176(4):928–38.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  118. 118.
    Kurki P, Ekman N. Biosimilar regulation in the EU. Expert Rev Clin Pharmacol. 2015;8(5):649–59.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    Giezen TJ, Avendaño-Solá C, Wolff-Holz E, Weise M, Ekman N, Laslop A, Breedveld F, Gomollón F, Puig L, Kurki P, Kvien TK, Thorpe R, Annese V. Roundtable on biosimilars with European regulators and medical societies, Brussels, Belgium, 12 January 2016. GaBI J. 2016;5(2):74–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. 120.
    Medicines for Europe. Positioning statements on physician-led switching for biosimilar medicines. 2017. http://www.medicinesforeurope.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/M-Biosimilars-Overview-of-positions-on-physician-led-switching.pdf. Accessed 8 Jan 2018.
  121. 121.
    Kurki P, van Aerts L, Wolff-Holz E, Giezen T, Skibeli V, Weise M. Interchangeability of biosimilars: a European perspective. BioDrugs. 2017;31(2):83–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  122. 122.
    Benucci M, Gobbi FL, Bandinelli F, Damiani A, Infantino M, Grossi V, Manfredi M, Parisi S, Fusaro E, Batticciotto A, Sarzi-Puttini P, Atzeni F, Meacci F. Safety, efficacy and immunogenicity of switching from innovator to biosimilar infliximab in patients with spondyloarthritis: a 6-month real-life observational study. Immunol Res. 2017;65(1):419–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  123. 123.
    Draft guidance for industry: labeling for biosimilar products, FDA, March 2016. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM493439.pdf. Accessed 8 Jan 2018.
  124. 124.
    European Commission. Consensus information paper 2013: what you need to know about biosimilar medicinal products. http://www.medicinesforeurope.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/biosimilars_report_en.pdf. Accessed 8 Jan 2018.
  125. 125.
    European Commission. Notice to applicants, Rev. 2. A guideline on summary of product characteristics (SmPC). September 2009. http://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/files/eudralex/vol-2/c/smpc_guideline_rev2_en.pdf. Accessed 8 Jan 2018.
  126. 126.
    QRD general principles regarding the SmPC information for a generic/hybrid/biosimilar product. EMA, 3 May 2012. EMA/627621/2011. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Regulatory_and_procedural_guideline/2012/05/WC500127589.pdf. Accessed 8 Jan 2018.
  127. 127.
    ICH comparability of biotechnological/biological products subject to changes in their manufacturing process. Q5E. ICH, June 2005. CPMP/ICH/5721/03. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2009/09/WC500002805.pdf. Accessed 8 Jan 2018.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Finnish Medicines Agency FimeaFimeaFinland
  2. 2.University of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland
  3. 3.NDA Advisory BoardNDA Advisory Services, LtdLeatherheadUK

Personalised recommendations