Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26854177›Full record

ReviewmAbs2016

Waiving in vivo studies for monoclonal antibody biosimilar development: National and global challenges.

Kathryn Chapman, Akosua Adjei, Paul Baldrick, Antonio da Silva, Karen De Smet, Richard DiCicco, Seung Suh Hong, David Jones, Michael W Leach, James McBlane and 5 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in mAbs, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Regulatory Evaluation of Biosimilars: Refinement of Principles Based on the Scientific Evidence and Clinical Experience.BioDrugs : clinical immunotherapeutics, biopharmaceuticals and gene therapy · 2022
    Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Kathryn Chapmana National Center for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs) , UK.
Akosua Adjeib Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Agency (MHRA) , UK.
Paul Baldrickc Covance Laboratories , Harrogate , UK.
Antonio da Silvad Sandoz , Holzkirchen , Germany.
Karen De Smete Federal Agency for Medical and Health Products (FAMHP) , Belgium.
Richard DiCiccof Harvest Moon Pharmaceuticals , US.
Seung Suh Hongg Celltrion , Japan.
David Jonesb Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Agency (MHRA) , UK.
Michael W Leachh Pfizer , US.
James McBlaneb Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Agency (MHRA) , UK.
Ian Ragani Independent , UK.
Praveen Reddyj Biocon , India.
Donald I H Stewartk Plantform Corp , Canada.
Amanda Suittersl Paraxel , UK.
Jennifer Simsm Integrated Biologix , Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Biosimilars are biological medicinal products that contain a version of the active substance of an already authorised original biological medicinal product (the innovator or reference product). The first approved biosimilar medicines were small proteins, and more recently biosimilar versions of innovator monoclonal antibody (mAb) drugs have entered development as patents on these more complex proteins expire. In September 2013, the first biosimilar mAb, infliximab, was authorised in Europe. In March 2015, the first biosimilar (Zarxio™, filgrastim-sndz, Sandoz) was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration; however, to date no mAb biosimilars have been approved in the US. There are currently major differences between how biosimilars are regulated in different parts of the world, leading to substantial variability in the amount of in vivo nonclinical toxicity testing required to support clinical development and marketing of biosimilars. There are approximately 30 national and international guidelines on biosimilar development and this number is growing. The European Union's guidance describes an approach that enables biosimilars to enter clinical trials based on robust in vitro data alone; in contrast, the World Health Organization's guidance is interpreted globally to mean in vivo toxicity studies are mandatory. We reviewed our own experience working in the global regulatory environment, surveyed current practice, determined drivers for nonclinical in vivo studies with biosimilar mAbs and shared data on practice and study design for 25 marketed and as yet unmarketed biosimilar mAbs that have been in development in the past 5y. These data showed a variety of nonclinical in vivo approaches, and also demonstrated the practical challenges faced in obtaining regulatory approval for clinical trials based on in vitro data alone. The majority of reasons for carrying out nonclinical in vivo studies were not based on scientific rationale, and therefore the authors have made recommendations for a data-driven approach to the toxicological assessment of mAb biosimilars that minimises unnecessary use of animals and can be used across all regions of the world.

Indexed as

Antibodies, MonoclonalBiosimilar PharmaceuticalsUnited States Food and Drug AdministrationAnimalsDrug ApprovalDrug Evaluation, PreclinicalHumansUnited StatesAntibodies, MonoclonalBiosimilar Pharmaceuticals3RsBiosimilardevelopmentEMAFDAguidelinesin vitroin vivoregulatorystudy designWHO

Identifiers

PMID26854177
PMCPMC4966840

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.