A Survey of the Criteria Used for the Selection of Alternative Comparator Products by Participating Regulators and Organizations of the International Pharmaceutical Regulators Programme.

The safety and efficacy of a generic product are partly based on demonstrating bioequivalence to the innovator product; however, when the innovator product is no longer available as a comparator product, a survey conducted within the Bioequivalence Working Group for Generics (BEWGG) of the International Pharmaceutical Regulators Programme (IPRP) indicated that the criteria for selecting an alternative comparator product varies. For most members of the BEWGG, an existing marketed generic that was approved based on a comparison with the locally registered innovator product can be used, contingent on criteria that ranges from allowing any generic to be used, to allowing only specific criteria-defined generics to be used. Notwithstanding the acceptability of a generic as an alternative comparator, it is not always the preferred comparator for several jurisdictions. Some jurisdictions require the use of a locally sourced alternative innovator comparator (e.g., the same medicinal ingredient manufactured by a different company) or a foreign innovator comparator. Unlike the other members of the BEWGG, the European Union (EU) has no such options available, rather mechanisms are in place to allow manufacturers to develop a new comparator. The criteria described herein regarding the use of an alternative comparator product can also be applied to scenarios where a specific strength of a series of strengths or an innovative fixed dose combination are discontinued. The results of the survey demonstrate that while criteria for selecting alternative comparator products are not harmonized among the BEWGG participants, the common concern for all jurisdictions is to select a comparator product that meets the safety and efficacy standards of the original innovator product.

Anti-C1q autoantibodies do not correlate with the occurrence or severity of experimental lupus nephritis.

BACKGROUND: In systemic lupus erythematosus patients, a strong association between the occurrence of antibodies against complement C1q (anti-C1q) and lupus nephritis can be observed. However, the predictive value of anti-C1q titres for a renal flare remains to be determined. Increasing titres of anti-C1q before the occurrence of clinical apparent nephritis might not only serve as a clinical parameter but also indicate a direct pathogenic mechanism of anti-C1q. METHODS: The aim of this study was to analyse the occurrence of anti-C1q before the onset of experimental lupus nephritis in MRL/MpJ +/+ mice and to correlate anti-C1q titres with the type and severity of glomerulonephritis (GN) developing at advanced age. RESULTS: As judged by a number of morphological and immunological analyses, GN in MRL/MpJ +/+ mice resembled human lupus nephritis and occurred in variable degrees of severity. We also observed an abundant and early presence of anti-C1q. However, anti-C1q neither correlated with overall survival nor with any histological marker of severity of GN. CONCLUSIONS: The absence of a correlation between the presence of anti-C1q and the occurrence of experimental lupus nephritis contradicts the hypothesis that anti-C1q are pathogenic. However, different pathogenic mechanisms of experimental lupus nephritis and human proliferative lupus nephritis cannot be excluded.

Autoantibodies against C1q in systemic lupus erythematosus are antigen-driven.

Autoantibodies against complement C1q (anti-C1q Abs) were shown to strongly correlate with the occurrence of severe nephritis in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), suggesting a potential pathogenic role by interfering with the complement cascade. To analyze the humoral immune response against C1q at the molecular level, we screened a bone marrow-derived IgGkappa/IgGlambda Fab phage display library from a SLE patient with high anti-C1q Ab titer against purified human C1q. Six Fabs that exhibited strong binding to C1q in ELISA were isolated. The anti-C1q Fabs recognized neoepitopes that were only exposed on bound C1q and not present on soluble C1q mapping to different regions of the collagen-like region of C1q. Analysis of the genes encoding the variable H and L chains of the IgG-derived anti-C1q Fab revealed that all the variable H and L chain regions were highly mutated, with nucleotide and amino acid homologies to the closest germline in the range of 71-97% (average 85 +/- 4) and 72-92% (average 88 +/- 6), respectively. In addition, the variable region of the Fabs exhibited high replacement to silent ratios. The six anti-C1q Fabs were shown to be of high affinity, with a K(d) ranging from of 8.4 x 10(-8) M to 1.4 x 10(-7) M, comparable to an antiviral immune response. Our data underlines the notion that the development of anti-C1q Abs in SLE is the consequence of an Ag-driven, affinity-matured immune response. Those anti-C1q Fabs are unique tools to address how complement C1q is implicated in the pathogenesis of SLE.

Autoantibodies against complement C1q specifically target C1q bound on early apoptotic cells.

Autoantibodies against complement C1q (anti-C1q) are frequently found in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). They strongly correlate with the occurrence of severe lupus nephritis, suggesting a pathogenic role in SLE. Because anti-C1q are known to recognize a neoepitope on bound C1q, but not on fluid-phase C1q, the aim of this study was to clarify the origin of anti-C1q by determining the mechanism that renders C1q antigenic. We investigated anti-C1q from serum and purified total IgG of patients with SLE and hypocomplementemic urticarial vasculitis as well as two monoclonal human anti-C1q Fab from a SLE patient generated by phage display. Binding characteristics, such as their ability to recognize C1q bound on different classes of Igs, on immune complexes, and on cells undergoing apoptosis, were analyzed. Interestingly, anti-C1q did not bind to C1q bound on Igs or immune complexes. Neither did we observe specific binding of anti-C1q to C1q bound on late apoptotic/necrotic cells when compared with binding in the absence of C1q. However, as shown by FACS analysis and confocal microscopy, anti-C1q specifically targeted C1q bound on early apoptotic cells. Anti-C1q were found to specifically target C1q bound on cells undergoing apoptosis. Our observations suggest that early apoptotic cells are a major target of the autoimmune response in SLE and provide a direct link between human SLE, apoptosis, and C1q.

Antinucleosome antibodies as a marker of active proliferative lupus nephritis.

BACKGROUND: Antinucleosome autoantibodies were previously described to be a marker of active lupus nephritis. However, the true prevalence of antinucleosome antibodies at the time of active proliferative lupus nephritis has not been well established. Therefore, the aim of this study is to define the prevalence and diagnostic value of autoantibodies against nucleosomes as a marker for active proliferative lupus nephritis. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective multicenter diagnostic test study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: 35 adult patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) at the time of the renal biopsy showing active class III or IV lupus nephritis compared with 59 control patients with SLE. INDEX TEST: Levels of antinucleosome antibodies and anti-double-stranded DNA (anti-dsDNA) antibodies. REFERENCE TEST: Kidney biopsy findings of class III or IV lupus nephritis at the time of sampling in a study population versus clinically inactive or no nephritis in a control population. RESULTS: Increased concentrations of antinucleosome antibodies were found in 31 of 35 patients (89%) with active proliferative lupus nephritis compared with 47 of 59 control patients (80%) with SLE. No significant difference between the 2 groups with regard to number of positive patients (P = 0.2) or antibody concentrations (P = 0.2) could be found. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve as a marker of the accuracy of the test in discriminating between proliferative lupus nephritis and inactive/no nephritis in patients with SLE was 0.581 (95% confidence interval, 0.47 to 0.70; P = 0.2). Increased concentrations of anti-dsDNA antibodies were found in 33 of 35 patients (94.3%) with active proliferative lupus nephritis compared with 49 of 58 control patients (84.5%) with SLE (P = 0.2). In patients with proliferative lupus nephritis, significantly higher titers of anti-dsDNA antibodies were detected compared with control patients with SLE (P < 0.001). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve in discriminating between proliferative lupus nephritis and inactive/no nephritis in patients with SLE was 0.710 (95% confidence interval, 0.60 to 0.82; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Antinucleosome antibodies have a high prevalence in patients with severe lupus nephritis. However, our data suggest that determining antinucleosome antibodies is of limited help in the distinction of patients with active proliferative lupus nephritis from patients with SLE without active renal disease.