Derivation of process control strategy for biosimilar: Is it different from the way a control strategy is derived for a novel biologic?

Quality based development (QbD) has become the preferred choice for developing manufacturing process for any biologic drug. A proponent for this approach has been the US Food and Drug Association (FDA). Recently, the first QbD applications have been successfully filed with FDA. Biosimilars have also gained popularity in the recent past. Development of these drugs are very different from the way a novel biologic is developed. In the last five years, many companies around the world have started working on Biosimilars of which some companies have been able to successfully develop and get approvals for Biosimilars in both FDA and European Medicenes agency (EMA). Application of QbD for a Novel and a Biosimilar drug is quite different. By nature of the requirement for developing a Biosimilar, quality of the ‘reference product’ against which the biosimilar is being developed is considered while making decisions during process development. Though the same concepts applies for a novel drug, the target quality profile is not as defined as one can write for a Biosimilar. This is because product quality information regarding the reference product is well-known and can be thoroughly analyzed and characterized. While the targets can be easily derived for a Biosimilar, deriving a process control strategy is tough. Critical Process Parameter (CPP) is defined as a process parameter that has significant impact on the safety and efficacy of the drug. While this definition for CPP is applicable for a Bisomilar also, another aspect which requires consideration for a Biosimilar drug is the impact of process parameters on ‘fingerprint biosimilarity’. Hence the classification of process parameters as those that are critical and those that are not is not as straight forward like for a Novel drug. Derivation of acceptance range for these parameters also is different – The acceptance range for CPPs when compared to that for a novel biologic is generally found to be narrow. This is because the desired range for the outputs (such as aggregates, glycan, charge, size variants etc.) is narrow owing to the product quality ranges observed for the reference product and not just the levels of the outputs which has an effect on safety and efficacy. These subtle differences make deriving the process control strategy for a Bisomilar different from a novel biologic. In this presentation, a detailed overview of scale down model qualification, process characterization experiments, and the control strategy for Biosimilar manufacturing processes is provided. A case study will be presented which showcases some of these concepts of deriving control strategy as how it is applied for a Biosimilar process

Dose optimization of ceftriaxone-vancomycin combination using fractional inhibitory concentration kinetics in resistant bacteria

The notorious Staphylococcus aureus resistant strains with ever changing resistance patterns have limited treatment options and have led to substantial number of deaths. Almost dried antibiotic pipeline has led us to look into combinations of already approved antibiotics for tackling rising incidence of antibacterial resistance. Recommended use of vancomycin and ceftriaxone together for treating severe infections involving resistant S. aureus is limited by dose adjustments and different dose frequencies. We have developed a pharmacodynamically synergistic fixed dose combination (FDC) of ceftriaxone and vancomycin (2:1), for eliminating individual component dose adjustments and frequencies. For identification of optimum exposure-response of FDC, one compartment in vitro system was used for dose escalation, fractionation and dose-response studies. The in-silico pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) modeling, simulations and validations were done. The results suggested % T>MICcomb (percentage of time fractional inhibitory concentrations of the drugs combined remained above the MICcomb [minimum inhibitory concentration for FDC]) followed by AUCcomb/MICcomb (ratio of area under fractional inhibitory curves to MICcomb) can predict the exposure (dose of FDC)-response (reduction in bacterial load) relationships effectively (r2 >0.9). Total exposure of 6 g in two divided doses (3 g each) was identified to be optimum. Monte Carlo simulations were performed to evaluate the effect of increasing doses against different MICs. Clinical breakpoint of the FDC was identified to be 4 µg/mL, which was 2 fold higher than that of vancomycin suggesting better antibacterial coverage

Clasp knife in the gut: a case report

BACKGROUND: A wide range of foreign bodies has been retrieved from the gut and reported. The presentation may be in the form of complications like intestinal obstruction, perforation and formation of abscesses etc but there is no case report of a half open clasp knife being retrieved from the ileum, the patient having thrived, in spite of its presence for a period of eight months. CASE PRESENTATION: A 30-year-old administrative clerk had undergone emergency abdominal surgery eight months previously under mysterious circumstances at a remote district hospital and had recovered completely. Later the blade of a knife was accidentally detected when an X ray of the abdomen was done during a routine follow-up visit to his family physician. Surgery revealed a clasp knife in the ileum, which was retrieved. The presence of an entero-enteric fistula short circuiting the loop was the secret of his earlier survival. CONCLUSIONS: To the best of our information this is the first case-report of a clasp knife in the gut and of the patient thriving in spite of its presence. We report here the dramatic sequence of events

Economic evaluation of shortened, bedaquiline-containing treatment regimens for rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis (STREAM stage 2): a within-trial analysis of a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: The STREAM stage 2 trial assessed two bedaquiline-containing regimens for rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis: a 9-month all-oral regimen and a 6-month regimen containing an injectable drug for the first 2 months. We did a within-trial economic evaluation of these regimens. METHODS: STREAM stage 2 was an international, phase 3, non-inferiority randomised trial in which participants with rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis were randomly assigned (1:2:2:2) to the 2011 WHO regimen (terminated early), a 9-month injectable-containing regimen (control regimen), a 9-month all-oral regimen with bedaquiline (oral regimen), or a 6-month regimen with bedaquiline and an injectable for the first 2 months (6-month regimen). We prospectively collected direct and indirect costs and health-related quality of life data from trial participants until week 76 of follow-up. Cost-effectiveness of the oral and 6-month regimens versus control was estimated in four countries (oral regimen) and two countries (6-month regimen), using health-related quality of life for cost-utility analysis and trial efficacy for cost-effectiveness analysis. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN18148631. FINDINGS: 300 participants were included in the economic analyses (Ethiopia, 61; India, 142; Moldova, 51; Uganda, 46). In the cost-utility analysis, the oral regimen was not cost-effective in Ethiopia, India, Moldova, and Uganda from either a provider or societal perspective. In Moldova, the oral regimen was dominant from a societal perspective. In the cost-effectiveness analysis, the oral regimen was likely to be cost-effective from a provider perspective at willingness-to-pay thresholds per additional favourable outcome of more than US$4500 in Ethiopia,$1900 in India, $3950 in Moldova, and$7900 in Uganda, and from a societal perspective at thresholds of more than $15 900 in Ethiopia,$3150 in India, and $4350 in Uganda, while in Moldova the oral regimen was dominant. In Ethiopia and India, the 6-month regimen would cost tuberculosis programmes and participants less than the control regimen and was highly likely to be cost-effective in both cost-utility analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis. Reducing the bedaquiline price from$1·81 to $1·00 per tablet made the oral regimen cost-effective in the provider-perspective cost-utility analysis in India and Moldova and dominate over the control regimen in the provider-perspective cost-effectiveness analysis in India. INTERPRETATION: At current costs, the oral bedaquiline-containing regimen for rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis is unlikely to be cost-effective in many low-income and middle-income countries. The 6-month regimen represents a cost-effective alternative if injectable use for 2 months is acceptable. FUNDING: USAID and Janssen Research & Development