1 / 17

Clinical trials for regulatory approval of biosimilars

Shravanti Bhowmik M.D. Clinical Research Sun Pharma Advanced Research Company. Clinical trials for regulatory approval of biosimilars. Agenda. Clinical trials for regulatory approval of biosimilars (guidelines) Challenges in trial endpoints

tambre
Télécharger la présentation

Clinical trials for regulatory approval of biosimilars

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ShravantiBhowmik M.D. Clinical Research Sun Pharma Advanced Research Company Clinical trials for regulatory approval of biosimilars 11 Oct 2012

  2. Agenda • Clinical trials for regulatory approval of biosimilars (guidelines) • Challenges in trial endpoints • Effects of trial population composition on outcomes • Acceptance of data generated in emerging markets for registrations in developed markets • Optimizing resources and time utilized 11 Oct 2012

  3. Guidelines • EMA: 2005 • WHO: 2009 • USA: Feb 2012 (draft) • India: May 2012 • Brazil,: dual pathway for approval of biosimilar products, permitting product approval with abbreviated non-clinical and clinical data • Korea ,Singapore, Australia: follow EMA • Cuba, Canada , Japan : guidelines similar to EMA & WHO. • Malaysia , Thailand: guidelines based on the WHO 11 Oct 2012

  4. What guidelines generally require… • Clinical comparability studies should use the most sensitive model to detect differences between SBPs and RBPs, and clinical trials should be powered adequately to demonstrate equivalence (ideally) or non-inferiority. 11 Oct 2012

  5. EU Approvals till date… Applications (Sep 2012) EU has approved 14 (of 15 ) biosimilar products • Filgrastim (7) • Epoetin (5) • Somatropin (2, one withdrawn) • Follitropinalfa • Insulin human • Infliximab 11 Oct 2012

  6. Worldwide status • 91 registered/ launched • 42 in phase 3 trials • 13 in phase 2 trials • 30 in phase 1 trials Ref: Citeline, Oct 2012 11 Oct 2012

  7. Case Study: Nivestim (approval: 2010, Hospira UK)…….(1) • RLD: Neupogen (Filgrastim, recombinant human G-CSF) • Indication: reduction in the duration of neutropenia and the incidence of febrile neutropenia in patients treated with established cytotoxic chemotherapy • MAA: Feb 2009; approval: Mar 2010 • Took scientific advice from CHMP: 2005/2006 (CHMP released guidance for rG-CSF in 2005) 11 Oct 2012

  8. Case Study: Nivestim (approval: 2010, Hospira UK)…….(2) • In vitro • in vitro cell based bioassay • receptor-binding assay • In vivo • PD (ANC counts), PK, immunogenicity (antibody assessment ), toxicity in neutropenic rodents- repeat dose toxicity (1 study) • Local tolerance in rabbits 11 Oct 2012

  9. Case Study: Nivestim (approval: 2010, Hospira UK)…….(3) • Clinical • Two phase 1 studies (healthy volunteer, PK, PD, safety) • Single dose (N=44) x iv or sc • Multiple dose (N=48) x 5 days x sc injection • Primary endpoint : AUC (0- t last) • Secondary endpoints: Cmax and others, ANC • BE limits: 0. 80-1.25 • One phase 3 study for therapeutic equivalence, immunogenicity of Nivestim and Neupogen in the prophylaxis of neutropenia in patients undergoing a myelosuppressive chemotherapy regimen (N=250) • Ca Breast receiving Doxorubicin + Docetaxel • 6 cycles, 3 weekly • Primary endpoint: duration of severe neutropenia (DSN) in cycle 1 • 2:1 randomization, DB 11 Oct 2012

  10. Case Study: Nivestim (approval: 2010, Hospira UK)…….(4) • RMP submitted: CHMP had concerns over the determination of antibody formation ; presence of NAbs in patients treated with Nivestim, Routine PV accepted • Post-authorization commitments to obtain more safety data 11 Oct 2012

  11. Case Study: Alpheon (refusal: 2006, BioPartners GmbH)…….(1) • RLD: Roferon-A (interferon alfa-2a, recombinant DNA technology) • Indication: chronic (long-term) hepatitis C in patients with e/o liver damage; to be taken with anti-viral (ribavirin) • MAA: Dec 2003; refusal: Jun 2006 • Took scientific advice from CHMP: 1999 (CHMP released guidance for interferon alfa-2a in 2009) 11 Oct 2012

  12. Case Study: Alpheon (refusal: 2006, BioPartners GmbH)…….(2) • CMC • Multidose vial (Test) Vs pen injector (Ref) for sc use • New information on the related substances/ impurities in Alpheon emerged at a very late stage in the assessment process, thus putting into question the previous data provided and the conclusions drawn from it. • proposed shelf-life for the drug substance was not supported by adequate data • Drug product production process was not considered to be fully validated • Impurity profile different and impurities not fully characterized • Lack of comparability of the clinical trial material with product produced by intended commercial process. 11 Oct 2012

  13. Case Study: Alpheon (refusal: 2006, BioPartners GmbH)…….(3) Pre-Clinical • In vitro study comparing the activity of Alpheon and Roferon-A in terms of antiviral activity and induction of interferon-sensitive genes • 4- week sc repeated-dose toxicity study (monkey) with PK, PD, TK, immunogenicity, local tolerance • Signals of differences between Alpheon and Roferon-A • Adverse event profile • Labs • PK levels • Highly variable data (3F/group) • Had conducted more tox studies in early 1990’s in Korea- limited importance 11 Oct 2012

  14. Case Study: Alpheon (refusal: 2006, BioPartners GmbH)…….(4) Clinical: • 2 studies for PK (included one with PD) • PK/ PD acceptable from 2nd DB study • 1 study for efficacy/safety • Included PK component, however data were highly variable • Included PD, outcome considered ‘similar’ but not ‘equivalent’ • Open-label, N=360 • Primary endpoint: rate of treatment responders (patients with undetectable HCV-RNA) after 12 weeks t/t 11 Oct 2012

  15. Case Study: Alpheon (refusal: 2006, BioPartners GmbH)…….(5) Clinical Results • Primary endpoint met • However, a sub-type ‘genotype-1’ population enrolled was 30%, compared with avg 60% infection rate in genotype-1 in EU (robustness and external validity doubts) • At end-of-observation period (72 weeks), low response compared with Ref in genotype-1 • Relatively ‘young’ patients • Higher AE rate (though not statistically significant) • Immunogenicity assessment method not ‘fully’ validated 11 Oct 2012

  16. Product/ Design considerations • Biosimilar or ‘Biobetter’: Payer willingness for reimbursement? May require to add outcomes that attract inclusion viz. cancer pathways • Commercial attractiveness Vs regulatory requirements…filing in EM/ EU/ US? • Biomarker endpoints ? • Most approvals may require post-marketing studies for safety/ immunogenicity 11 Oct 2012

  17. 11 Oct 2012

More Related