Advertisement

Biosimilars pp 653-674 | Cite as

Development and Commercialization of Biosimilars in India: Current Regulatory and Clinical Experience

  • Anurag S. RathoreEmail author
  • Srishti Joshi
  • Ankita Bhargava
  • Neh Nupur
Chapter
Part of the AAPS Advances in the Pharmaceutical Sciences Series book series (AAPS, volume 34)

Abstract

The ever-increasing cost of healthcare together with our improved understanding of biotech therapeutic drugs has fueled the rise of biosimilars. A step towards achieving the successful development of a biosimilar is to establish analytical similarity with the innovator drug. This is necessary so as to avail the significant reduction in clinical data required for achieving regulatory approval. A key concern is the limited understanding of how the different quality attributes (QA) affect its safety and efficacy profile. India has successfully demonstrated its ability to make affordable, high-quality pharmaceutical products for the world, particularly the small molecule generics. This fact is validated by the trend that the share of Indian made pharmaceutical products in the US market has been constantly increasing and is presently more than 30%. The question is if India can successfully replicate its success, in manufacturing complex biotherapeutic products. This chapter explores India’s journey in the field of biosimilar manufacturing with an emphasis on the regulatory aspect. Followed by a concise overview of the evolution of global regulatory guidelines, the Indian framework has been discussed in detail. Major changes introduced in the latest guidelines for similar biologics (2016) have been highlighted. Insight into the key developments related to clinical experiences and thereby addition of more sophisticated platforms to the analytical armory in the past decade for characterization of biosimilars has been given. Two recently published case studies on analytical platform approach used to establish similarity for microbial (GCSF) and mammalian product (Rituximab), in the Indian marketplace, using an array of advanced, orthogonal, high-resolution analytical methods, have been discussed. Finally, the importance post-approval pharmacovigilance as a feedback mechanism to update and improve existing regulatory framework has been outlined.

Keywords

Affordable biopharmaceutical Analytical comparability Biosimilar market Clinical experience Regulatory framework Revised guidelines Similar biologics 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was funded by the DBT Centre of Excellence for Biopharmaceutical Technology grant under Department of Biotechnology, Government of India (BT/COE/34/SP15097/2015).

References

  1. Beck A, Diemer H, Ayoub D, Debaene F, Wagner-Rousset E, Carapito C, Van Dorsselaer A, Sanglier-Cianférani S. Analytical characterization of biosimilar antibodies and Fc-fusion proteins. Trends Anal Chem. 2013;48:81–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trac.2013.02.014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bennett CL, Chen B, Wyatt MD, Schulz RM, Georgantopoulos P, Kessler S, Qureshi ZP, Lu ZK, Love BL, Noxon V, Bian J, Ray P, Ablin RJ, Hruskesky WJ, Hermanson T, Raisch DW, Bobolts L, Armitage M, Hrushesky WJ, Macdougall IC, Sartor O, Armitage JO. Regulatory and clinical considerations for biosimilar oncology drugs. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15(13):e594–605. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(14)70365-1.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Berkowitz SA. Biosimilar drug product development. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2017. p. 15–82. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315119878-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Biosimilar Development. Global biosimilars follow-on-biologics market 2016 industry demand insight profile and research to 2020. 2016.Google Scholar
  5. Biosimilars in Global Markets CPhI China. 2017. Available at http://www.cphi.com/china/visit/news-and-updates/biosimilars-global-markets.
  6. Brennan Z. India’s CDSCO warns against using Roche’s Avastin as eye treatment, regulatory affairs professional society. 2016. Available at http://206.79.211.135/Regulatory-Focus/News/2016/01/21/23941/India’s-CDSCO-Warns-Against-Using-Roche’s-Avastin-as-Eye- Treatment/#.
  7. Bui LA, Hurst S, Finch GL, Ingram B, Jacobs IA, Kirchhoff CF, Ng CK, Ryan AM. Key considerations in the preclinical development of biosimilars. Drug discovery today. 2015; 20:3–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.drudis.2015.03.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carlsson G, Ahlin A, Dahllof G, Elinder G, Henter J-I, Palmblad J. Efficacy and safety of two different rG-CSF preparations in the treatment of patients with severe congenital neutropenia. Br J Haematol. 2004;126(1):127–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2141.2004.05008.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Christl L. FDA’s Overview of the regulatory guidance for the development and approval of biosimilar products in the US. 2016. Available at http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/Drugs/OncologicDrugsAdvisoryCommittee/UCM431118.pdf.
  10. DBT and CDSCO. Guidelines on similar biologics 2016 guidelines on similar biologics: regulatory requirements for markeng authorizaon in India. 2016.Google Scholar
  11. Declerck PJ. Biologicals and biosimilars: a review of the science and its implications. GaBI J. 2012;1(1):13–6. https://doi.org/10.5639/gabij.2012.0101.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Domestic Biologicals Cost Less in India. Generics and Biosimilars Initiative Journal. 2016. Available at http://www.gabionline.net/Biosimilars/Research/Domestic-biologicals-cost-less-in-India. Accessed 21 June 2017.
  13. European Medicines Agency. Guideline on similar biological medicinal products containing biotechnology-derived proteins as active substance: quality issues. 2006. pp. 1–8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.333.7574.873-a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. European Medicines Agency. Guideline on non-clinical and clinical development of similar biological medicinal products containing recombinant human insulin and insulin analogues. EMEA. 2015;44:1–7.Google Scholar
  15. FDA. Scientific considerations in demonstrating biosimilarity to a reference product guidance for industry scientific considerations in demonstrating biosimilarity to a reference product. Guidance for industry (February). 2015.Google Scholar
  16. Flores-Ortiz LF, Campos-García VR, Perdomo-Abúndez FC, Pérez NO, Medina-Rivero E. Physicochemical properties of rituximab. J Liq Chromatogr Relat Technol. 2014;37(10):1438–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/10826076.2013.794738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. GaBI Journal Editor. Patent expiry dates for best-selling biologicals. GaBI J. 2015;4(4):178–9. https://doi.org/10.5639/gabij.2015.0404.040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. George B. Changes in regulatory requirements for biosimilar development in India. 2016. Available at https://www.biosimilardevelopment.com/doc/changes-in-regulatory-requirements-for-biosimilar-development-in-india-0001.
  19. Hernandez MP, Lopez-Moralez CA, Ramirez-Ibanez ND, Pina-Laura N, Perez NO, Molina-Perez A, Revilla-Beltri J, Flores-Ortiz LF, Medina-Rivero E. Assessment of physicochemical properties of rituximab related to its immunomodulatory activity. J Immunol Res. 2015;2015:910763. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/910763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Holzmann J, Hausberger A, Rupprechter A, Toll H. Top-down MS for rapid methionine oxidation site assignment in filgrastim. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2013;405(21):6667–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-013-7138-0.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. ICH Guidelines. Specifications: test procedures and acceptance critreia for biotechnological/biological products Q6B (March). 2000. pp. 1–20.Google Scholar
  22. ICH Guidelines. Comparability of biotechnological/biological products subject to changes in their manufacturing process Q5E (March). 2013. pp. 1–20.Google Scholar
  23. James S. Biosimilars market size is projected to reach $41.7 billion, demand in various end-use industries till 2024: Grand View Research, Inc; 2016. Available at https://globenewswire.com/news-release/2016/07/19/857002/0/en/Biosimilars-Market-Size-Is-Projected-To-Reach-41-7-Billion-Demand-In-Various-End-use-Industries-Till-2024-Grand-View-Research-Inc.html.
  24. Joshi VS, Kumar V, Rathore AS. ‘Role of organic modifier and gradient shape in rp-hplc separation: analysis of gcsf variants. J Chromatogr Sci. 2015;53(3):417–23. https://doi.org/10.1093/chromsci/bmu222.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Kanase SJ, Gavhane YN, Khandekar A, Gurav AS, Yadav AV. Biosimilar: an overview. Int J Pharm Sci Res. 2013;4(6):2132–44. https://doi.org/10.13040/IJPSR.0975-8232.4(6).2132-44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kashyap V. Highlights of proposed biosimilar guidelines, LexOrbis. 2016. Available at https://www.lexorbis.com/highlights-of-proposed-biosimilar-guidelines-2016/. Accessed 21 June 2017.
  27. Konangi S, Raviteja MN, Vishal GN. Comparison of global regulatory approvals for biosimilar products. Int J PharmTech Res. 2013;5(3):924–35.Google Scholar
  28. Konara CS, Barnard RT, Hine D, Siegel E, Ferro V. The tortoise and the hare: evolving regulatory landscapes for biosimilars. Trends Biotechnol. 2016;34(1):70–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2015.10.009.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Kumar R, Singh J. ‘Biosimilar drugs: current status. J Appl Basic Med Res. 2014;4(2):63–5. https://doi.org/10.4103/2229-516x.136774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lo C. Going global: India’s big biosimilar move - Pharmaceutical Technology. 2016.Google Scholar
  31. Malhotra H, Krishnan A, Mody R. Global regulatory landscape of biosimilars: emerging and established market perspectives. Biosimilars. 2015;2015:19–32. https://doi.org/10.2147/BS.S44052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mordor Intelligence. Global biosimilar market|industry report|outlook|analysis|size and forecast. 2017.Google Scholar
  33. Nagarjunareddy D, Brahmaiah B. Regulatory requirements of “similar biologics” for marketing authorization in India. Int J Drug Regul Aff. 2017;51:20–4. https://doi.org/10.22270/ijdra.v5i1.193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nupur N, Singh SK, Narula G, Rathore AS. Assessing analytical comparability of biosimilars: GCSF as a case study. J Chromatogr B Analyt Technol Biomed Life Sci. 2016;1032:165–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jchromb.2016.05.027.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Nupur N, Dash R, Chhabra N, Rathore A. Assessing analytical comparability of biosimilars: rituximab as a case study. MAbs. 2017;10(1):143–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Partnerships Driving Similar Biologics Development in India. Generics and Biosimilars Initiative Journal. 2016. Available at http://www.gabionline.net/Biosimilars/Research/Partnerships-driving-similar-biologics-development-in-India. Accessed 21 June 2017.
  37. Patel D. Patients report eye inflammation, Intas recalls its drug. The Indian Express. 2017. Available at https://www.pressreader.com/india/the-indian-express/20170403/282063391812417. Accessed 18 June 2017.
  38. Philippidis A. The top 15 best-selling drugs of 2016|the lists|GEN, Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News. 2017. Available at http://www.genengnews.com/the-lists/the-top-15-best-selling-drugs-of-2016/77900868. Accessed 21 June 2017.
  39. Rao R. Indian companies gearing up to solve the biosimilars puzzle|Business Standard News. 2016.Google Scholar
  40. Rathore AS. Follow-on protein products: scientific issues, developments and challenges. Trends Biotechnol. 2009;27(12):698–705. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2009.09.004.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Schellekens H, Jiskoot W. Eprex-associated pure red cell aplasia and leachates. Nat Biotechnol. 2006;24(6):613–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schellekens H, Moors E. Clinical comparability and European biosimilar regulations. Nat Biotechnol. 2010;28(1):28–31. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0110-28.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Shaw KM. Biotechnology: helping India innovate for the future. Employment News, February. 2016. p. 1.Google Scholar
  44. Shuster M, Farmer-Koppenol P. A Comparison of US and EU biosimilars regimes. Fenmick and West LLP; 2013. pp. 3–4.Google Scholar
  45. Similar Biologics Approved and Marketed in India. Generics and Biosimilars Initiative Journal. 2012. Available at http://www.gabionline.net/Biosimilars/General/Similar-biologics-approved-and-marketed-in-India. Accessed 21 June 2017.
  46. Similar Biologics Approved and Marketed in India. Gernerics and Biosimilars Initiative. 2016. Available at http://www.gabionline.net/Biosimilars/General/Similar-biologics-approved-and-marketed-in-India. Accessed 18 June 2017.
  47. Singh Sekhon Vikrant Saluja B, Singh Sekhon B. Biosimilars: an overview. Biosimilars. 2011;1:1–11. https://doi.org/10.2147/BS.S16120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Skrlin A, Radic I, Vuletic M, Schwinke D, Runac D, Kusalic T, Paskvan I, Krsic M, Bratos M, Marinc S. Comparison of the physicochemical properties of a biosimilar filgrastim with those of reference filgrastim. Biologicals. 2010;38(5):557–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biologicals.2010.05.002.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Swamilingiah G. Insight: the biopharmaceuticals ecosystem in India and opportunities for European Collaboration, European Business and Technology Centre. 2014. Available at http://ebtc.eu/index.php/communication/ebtc-news/195-biotechnology-news/367-insight-the-biopharmaceuticals-ecosystem-in-india-and-opportunities-for-european-collaboration. Accessed 17 June 2017.
  50. Tank Chintankumar J, Borkhataria Chetan H, Baria Ashok H, Patel Rakesh P, Tamizharasi S, Sureja DK, Patel SD, Parmar GR. Formulation and evaluation of aceclofenac loaded maltodextrin based proniosome. Int J ChemTech Res. 2009;1(3):567–73. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM197302222880814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Unnikrishnan C. Biosimilar market to cross 40 billion in India by 2030 - BW Businessworld. 2016. Available at http://businessworld.in/article/Biosimilar-Market-To-Cross-40-Billion-In-India-By-2030/06-10-2016-106686/.
  52. US Department of Health and Human Services. Clinical pharmacology data to support a demonstration of biosimilarity to a reference product. Guidance for Industry, (December). 2016. pp. 1–18.Google Scholar
  53. Welch AR. Health Canada’s unique approach to biosimilar regulation. 2016.Google Scholar
  54. WHO. Guidelines on evaluation of monoclonal antibodies as similar biotherapeutic products (SBPs). World Health Organization (October). 2016. pp. 17–21.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anurag S. Rathore
    • 1
    Email author
  • Srishti Joshi
    • 1
  • Ankita Bhargava
    • 1
  • Neh Nupur
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Chemical EngineeringIndian Institute of TechnologyNew DelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations