Switching to biosimilar infliximab (CT-P13): Evidence of clinical safety, effectiveness and impact on public health.

CT-P13, the biosimilar of infliximab, has been recently approved in the EU, Australia, Canada, Japan and many other countries. Thus, it was the first biosimilar approved in the field of rheumatology, dermatology and gastroenterology. Since there has been debate about the issue of switching from RMP to the biosimilar and some national societies have expressed concerns, this review was written with the following objectives: The review concludes that whilst prudent switching practices should be employed, growing safety experience accumulated thus far with CT-P13 and other biosimilars is favorable and does not raise any specific concerns.

Progress in biosimilar monoclonal antibody development: the infliximab biosimilar CT-P13 in the treatment of rheumatic diseases.

Biosimilars are biologic medical products whose active drug substance is made by a living organism or derived from it. The term is used to describe a subsequent version of an innovator biopharmaceutical product aiming at approval following patent expiry on the reference product. Biosimilars of monoclonal need to demonstrate similar but not identical quality of nonclinical and clinical attributes. Not all data of the originator product need to be recapitulated, as large numbers of patient-years of exposure data are already available. Thus, biosimilar development is largely based on the safety profiles of the originator product. The evaluation of biosimilarity includes immunogenicity attributed risks. CT-P13 (Remsima™/Inflectra™, Celltrion/Hospira), a biosimilar of the innovator drug infliximab (INF), was the first approved complex biosimilar monoclonal antibody in the EU, within the framework of WHO, EMA and US FDA biosimilar guidelines. CT-P13 has shown analytical and nonclinical features highly similar to INF including pharmacokinetics, efficacy, safety and immunogenicity profiles in ankylosing spondylitis and rheumatoid arthritis. The objective of this article is to highlight the recent biosimilar development and to review the results from the studies PLANETRA and PLANETAS, which have supported the approval of CT-P13 for several indications.

Case studies on clinical evaluation of biosimilar monoclonal antibody: scientific considerations for regulatory approval.

The objective of this paper is to provide considerations based on comprehensive case studies important for regulatory evaluation of monoclonal antibodies as similar biotherapeutic products (SBPs) with a special emphasis on clinical aspects. Scientific principles from WHO Guidelines on SBPs were used as a basis for the exercise. Working groups consisted of regulators, manufacturers and academia. The following topics were discussed by the working groups: clinical criteria for biosimilarity, extrapolation approach and the overall regulatory decision making process. In order to determine typical pitfalls in the design of a SBP clinical programme and evaluate the gap of knowledge, amongst different industry and regulatory stakeholders on the appraisal of the data arising from SBP clinical studies, we have presented two fictional but realistic clinical case studies. The first case consists of the fictional development programme for an infliximab SBP candidate. The second case describes clinical studies proposed for a fictional rituximab SBP candidate. In the first scenario a highly similar quality profile has been taken forward into clinical studies whereas there was an important residual difference in functional attributes for the rituximab SBP candidate. These case studies were presented at the WHO implementation workshop for the WHO guidelines on evaluation of similar biotherapeutic products held in Seoul, Republic of Korea, in May 2014. The goal was to illustrate the interpretation of the clinical data arising from studies with SBP candidates and elicit knowledge gaps in clinical assessment. This paper reflects the outcome of the exercise and discussions held in Seoul and offers an analysis of the case studies as a learning opportunity on clinical development and evaluation of SBPs.

Cancer vaccines: what do we need to measure in clinical trials?

Cancer immunotherapy has seen a tremendous number of failures and only few recent regulatory successes. This review is dedicated to evaluate remaining challenges in capturing clinical response with cancer vaccines. Definition of disease progression in context of clinical rather image-specific criteria and interpretation of efficacy in relation to delayed effect of cancer vaccines should be taken into account in the design of future of immunotherapy trials.

Overview of the cancer vaccine field: are we moving forward?

Cancer immunotherapy has seen a tremendous number of failures and only few recent regulatory successes. This review is a first in a series dedicated to evaluate the status of current global clinical pipeline for cancer vaccines. Apart from specific areas of medical need which can be addressed by cancer vaccines, the analysis of the pipeline by clinical indication suggests that a disproportionately large number of candidates is currently developed in prostate, breast, lung cancer and melanoma with significant gap of candidates in remaining oncology indications. With potential offering and benefits that cancer immunotherapy could bring to patient community and society as a whole, we require new innovative R&D, improved Antigen Discovery programs and business models to fill serious gaps in cancer vaccine R&D pipeline.

Business models and opportunities for cancer vaccine developers.

Despite of growing oncology pipeline, cancer vaccines contribute only to a minor share of total oncology-attributed revenues. This is mainly because of a limited number of approved products and limited sales from products approved under compassionate or via early access entry in smaller and less developed markets. However revenue contribution from these products is extremely limited and it remains to be established whether developers are breaking even or achieving profitability with existing sales. Cancer vaccine field is well recognized for high development costs and risks, low historical rates of investment return and high probability of failures arising in ventures, partnerships and alliances. The cost of reimbursement for new oncology agents is not universally acceptable to payers limiting the potential for a global expansion, market access and reducing probability of commercial success. In addition, the innovation in cancer immunotherapy is currently focused in small and mid-size biotech companies and academic institutions struggling for investment. Existing R&D innovation models are deemed unsustainable in current "value-for-money" oriented healthcare environment. New business models should be much more open to collaborative, networked and federated styles, which could help to outreach global, markets and increase cost-efficiencies across an entire value chain. Lessons learned from some developing countries and especially from South Korea illustrate that further growth of cancer vaccine industry will depends not only on new business models but also will heavily rely on regional support and initiatives from different bodies, such as governments, payers and regulatory bodies.

Reimbursement challenges with cancer immunotherapeutics.

Today the task of cancer vaccine developers is not only to excel in cancer immunology and art of conducting immunotherapy trials but also in the analysis and forecasting the cost-effectiveness of the final product. This article reviews methodology used by EU health-technology bodies in the appraisal of new therapies based on economic and clinical values and different budgetary uncertainties. Increasingly, new oncology treatments were able to access EU market only under provision of risk-sharing agreements with payers and examples of such agreements are given here. Cancer vaccine developers should consider early collection of patient reported outcomes in order to project additional clinical and economic value with immunotherapy. Furthermore, early interaction with different stakeholders including patient organizations, physicians and payer bodies can facilitate market access.

Overview of cancer vaccines: considerations for development.

Cancer immunotherapy has seen a tremendous number of failures and only few recent regulatory successes. This is a review dedicated to determine major regulatory and developmental issues around cancer immunotherapeutics. A three pillar approach should be used in setting a development path: discovery platforms and sufficient pool of validated tumor antigens, product development strategy enabling to bring the product closer to the patient and clinical development strategy accounting for competitive landscape, treatment paradigm, technical and commercial risks. Regulatory framework existing around cancer vaccines in the EU, US, Japan and some developing countries is outlined. In addition, the review covers some specific issues on the design and conduct of clinical trials with cancer vaccines.

Challenges in the clinical development requirements for the marketing authorization of new medicines in southeast Asia.

A rapid growth of investment into clinical research and new drug development has manifested itself by an exponential increase of new products coming onto the worldwide market. The emerging pharmaceutical and biotech markets in Southeast Asia are believed to be extremely promising from a commercial point of view in the next decade. The unique position of the Asian market and the diversity in clinical research initiatives are linked with diverse regulatory requirements for clinical development and registration of new medicines. Some of these differences have an impact on timelines for marketing authorizations in South Korea, China, Thailand, Japan, Singapore, and other countries. One of the approaches to streamlining regulatory strategy in different countries is the initiation of multicountry international clinical trials trying to address requirements and allowing registration in several regional countries simultaneously. Increasing cooperation between South Asian countries in relation to regulatory requirements and clinical development will facilitate the registration of innovative medicines in this rapidly developing region of the world and enable improved cohesiveness between countries in a drug safety framework.

Cunning factor: macrophage migration inhibitory factor as a redox-regulated target.

Macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF) has an amazing history of rediscoveries and controversies surroundings its true biological function. It has been classified as a powerful cytokine capable of inducing tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha, IL-1beta, IL-6, IL-8, PGE2 along with its ability to override glucocorticoid activity in relation to TNF-alpha release from monocytes. However, our recent study has failed to reproduce findings on MIF as a factor with cytokine-inducing properties but it has confirmed that MIF is capable of inducing glucocorticoid-counter regulating activity and amplifying LPS-driven cytokine responses. The aim of this review is to analyse the plethora of data surrounding MIF not just as a cytokine, but also as a hormone-like molecule, enzyme with atypical properties and as a thioredoxin-like protein to address fundamental questions about MIF functionality.

Human macrophage migration inhibitory factor: a proven immunomodulatory cytokine?

Macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF) is a pro-inflammatory mediator with the ability to induce various immunomodulatory responses and override glucocorticoid-driven immunosuppression. Some of these functions have been linked to the unusual enzymatic properties of the protein, namely tautomerase and oxidoreductase activities. However, there are conflicting reports regarding the functional role of these enzymatic properties in normal physiological homeostasis and disease progression. Therefore, we have produced a highly pure, virtually endotoxin-free recombinant MIF preparation and fully characterized this using a variety of biochemical and biophysical approaches. The recombinant protein, with demonstrable enzymatic activity, was then used to systematically examine the biological activity of MIF. Surprisingly, treatment with MIF alone failed to induce cytokine expression, with the exception of IL-8. However, co-treatment of lipopolysaccharide (LPS) in conjunction with MIF produced synergistic secretion of tumor necrosis factor-alpha, interleukin (IL)-1, and IL-8 compared with LPS alone. The potentiating effect of MIF was seen at physiologically relevant concentrations. These data suggest that MIF has no conventional cytokine activity but, rather, acts to modulate and amplify the response to LPS.