Pragmatic rules for comparability of biological medicinal products

Item does not contain fulltex

Reporting of quality attributes in scientific publications presenting biosimilarity assessments of (intended) biosimilars: a systematic literature review

Last years, more than 46 unique biosimilars were approved by EMA and/or US-FDA following patent expiration of reference products. Biosimilars are not identical like generics, but highly similar versions where demonstrating biosimilarity of quality attributes (QAs) to a reference product is the basis of development and regulatory approval. Information on QAs assessed to establish biosimilarity may not always be publicly available, although this information is imperative to understand better the science behind biosimilars approval. This study aims to identify QA types reported in publications presenting biosimilarity assessments of (intended) biosimilars over time. English full-text publications presenting biosimilarity assessments of QAs for (intended) biosimilars between 2000 and 2019 identified from PubMed and EMBASE. Publication characteristics and QAs classified into: structural (physicochemical properties, primary structure, higher-order structures (HOSs), post-translational modifications (PTMs), and purity and impurities) and functional (biological and immunochemical activities) were extracted from publications. Seventy-nine publications were identified (79% open-access, 75% industry-sponsored, 62% including unapproved biosimilars, and 66% involving antibodies). Reporting frequencies varied for QA types: biological activity (94%), physicochemical properties (81%), PTMs (79%), primary structure (77%) purity and impurities (73%), HOSs (58%), and immunochemical activity (41%). The number of publications increased from 6 (7%) during 2009–2011 to 62 (79%) during 2015–2019. Eighteen (28%) publications reported all QA types relevant to an active-biological-substance. Reporting of most QA types increased over time that most evidenced by immunochemical activity (from 0% to 47%) which occured after EMA monoclona

Reporting of quality attributes in scientific publications presenting biosimilarity assessments of (intended) biosimilars: a systematic literature review

Publisher's version (útgefin grein)Last years, more than 46 unique biosimilars were approved by EMA and/or US-FDA following patent expiration of reference products. Biosimilars are not identical like generics, but highly similar versions where demonstrating biosimilarity of quality attributes (QAs) to a reference product is the basis of development and regulatory approval. Information on QAs assessed to establish biosimilarity may not always be publicly available, although this information is imperative to understand better the science behind biosimilars approval. This study aims to identify QA types reported in publications presenting biosimilarity assessments of (intended) biosimilars over time. English full-text publications presenting biosimilarity assessments of QAs for (intended) biosimilars between 2000 and 2019 identified from PubMed and EMBASE. Publication characteristics and QAs classified into: structural (physicochemical properties, primary structure, higher-order structures (HOSs), post-translational modifications (PTMs), and purity and impurities) and functional (biological and immunochemical activities) were extracted from publications. Seventy-nine publications were identified (79% open-access, 75% industry-sponsored, 62% including unapproved biosimilars, and 66% involving antibodies). Reporting frequencies varied for QA types: biological activity (94%), physicochemical properties (81%), PTMs (79%), primary structure (77%) purity and impurities (73%), HOSs (58%), and immunochemical activity (41%). The number of publications increased from 6 (7%) during 2009–2011 to 62 (79%) during 2015–2019. Eighteen (28%) publications reported all QA types relevant to an active-biological-substance. Reporting of most QA types increased over time that most evidenced by immunochemical activity (from 0% to 47%) which occured after EMA monoclonal antibody (mAbs) guidline in 2012 and more publications on mAbs later on when compared to earlier period. Biosimilarity assessments of QAs have been published in peer-reviewed publications for about 60% of approved biosimilars. Publishing biosimilarity assessments and reporting QAs over time appears to be affected by regulatory actions that occurred in 2012-2015, including regulatory approval and development of regulatory guidelines for biosimilars. Availability of a complete, publicly accessible and unbiased biosimilarity assessment of QAs, as part of a trusted and transparent regulatory process, will contribute to increased confidence and acceptance of biosimilars in clinical practice.This study was funded by the Saudi Food and Drug Authority(SFDA) through the Saudi Arabian cultural mission (SACM), the Hague,Netherlands as a part of a Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) project for AMA.The SFDA has no role in any aspect of the study, including the pre-paration, review, the approval of the manuscript, nor the decision topublish the manuscript.Peer Reviewe

Reporting of quality attributes in scientific publications presenting biosimilarity assessments of (intended) biosimilars: a systematic literature review

Last years, more than 46 unique biosimilars were approved by EMA and/or US-FDA following patent expiration of reference products. Biosimilars are not identical like generics, but highly similar versions where demonstrating biosimilarity of quality attributes (QAs) to a reference product is the basis of development and regulatory approval. Information on QAs assessed to establish biosimilarity may not always be publicly available, although this information is imperative to understand better the science behind biosimilars approval. This study aims to identify QA types reported in publications presenting biosimilarity assessments of (intended) biosimilars over time. English full-text publications presenting biosimilarity assessments of QAs for (intended) biosimilars between 2000 and 2019 identified from PubMed and EMBASE. Publication characteristics and QAs classified into: structural (physicochemical properties, primary structure, higher-order structures (HOSs), post-translational modifications (PTMs), and purity and impurities) and functional (biological and immunochemical activities) were extracted from publications. Seventy-nine publications were identified (79% open-access, 75% industry-sponsored, 62% including unapproved biosimilars, and 66% involving antibodies). Reporting frequencies varied for QA types: biological activity (94%), physicochemical properties (81%), PTMs (79%), primary structure (77%) purity and impurities (73%), HOSs (58%), and immunochemical activity (41%). The number of publications increased from 6 (7%) during 2009-2011 to 62 (79%) during 2015-2019. Eighteen (28%) publications reported all QA types relevant to an active-biological-substance. Reporting of most QA types increased over time that most evidenced by immunochemical activity (from 0% to 47%) which occured after EMA monoclonal antibody (mAbs) guidline in 2012 and more publications on mAbs later on when compared to earlier period. Biosimilarity assessments of QAs have been published in peer-reviewed publications for about 60% of approved biosimilars. Publishing biosimilarity assessments and reporting QAs over time appears to be affected by regulatory actions that occurred in 2012-2015, including regulatory approval and development of regulatory guidelines for biosimilars. Availability of a complete, publicly accessible and unbiased biosimilarity assessment of QAs, as part of a trusted and transparent regulatory process, will contribute to increased confidence and acceptance of biosimilars in clinical practice

Reporting of quality attributes in scientific publications presenting biosimilarity assessments of (intended) biosimilars: a systematic literature review

Last years, more than 46 unique biosimilars were approved by EMA and/or US-FDA following patent expiration of reference products. Biosimilars are not identical like generics, but highly similar versions where demonstrating biosimilarity of quality attributes (QAs) to a reference product is the basis of development and regulatory approval. Information on QAs assessed to establish biosimilarity may not always be publicly available, although this information is imperative to understand better the science behind biosimilars approval. This study aims to identify QA types reported in publications presenting biosimilarity assessments of (intended) biosimilars over time. English full-text publications presenting biosimilarity assessments of QAs for (intended) biosimilars between 2000 and 2019 identified from PubMed and EMBASE. Publication characteristics and QAs classified into: structural (physicochemical properties, primary structure, higher-order structures (HOSs), post-translational modifications (PTMs), and purity and impurities) and functional (biological and immunochemical activities) were extracted from publications. Seventy-nine publications were identified (79% open-access, 75% industry-sponsored, 62% including unapproved biosimilars, and 66% involving antibodies). Reporting frequencies varied for QA types: biological activity (94%), physicochemical properties (81%), PTMs (79%), primary structure (77%) purity and impurities (73%), HOSs (58%), and immunochemical activity (41%). The number of publications increased from 6 (7%) during 2009-2011 to 62 (79%) during 2015-2019. Eighteen (28%) publications reported all QA types relevant to an active-biological-substance. Reporting of most QA types increased over time that most evidenced by immunochemical activity (from 0% to 47%) which occured after EMA monoclonal antibody (mAbs) guidline in 2012 and more publications on mAbs later on when compared to earlier period. Biosimilarity assessments of QAs have been published in peer-reviewed publications for about 60% of approved biosimilars. Publishing biosimilarity assessments and reporting QAs over time appears to be affected by regulatory actions that occurred in 2012-2015, including regulatory approval and development of regulatory guidelines for biosimilars. Availability of a complete, publicly accessible and unbiased biosimilarity assessment of QAs, as part of a trusted and transparent regulatory process, will contribute to increased confidence and acceptance of biosimilars in clinical practice.status: publishe

Global beta-diversity of angiosperm trees is shaped by Quaternary climate change

As Earth's climate has varied strongly through geological time, studying the impacts of past climate change on biodiversity helps to understand the risks from future climate change. However, it remains unclear how paleoclimate shapes spatial variation in biodiversity. Here, we assessed the influence of Quaternary climate change on spatial dissimilarity in taxonomic, phylogenetic, and functional composition among neighboring 200-kilometer cells (beta-diversity) for angiosperm trees worldwide. We found that larger glacial-interglacial temperature change was strongly associated with lower spatial turnover (species replacements) and higher nestedness (richness changes) components of beta-diversity across all three biodiversity facets. Moreover, phylogenetic and functional turnover was lower and nestedness higher than random expectations based on taxonomic beta-diversity in regions that experienced large temperature change, reflecting phylogenetically and functionally selective processes in species replacement, extinction, and colonization during glacial-interglacial oscillations. Our results suggest that future human-driven climate change could cause local homogenization and reduction in taxonomic, phylogenetic, and functional diversity of angiosperm trees worldwide

High exposure of global tree diversity to human pressure

Safeguarding Earth’s tree diversity is a conservation priority due to the importance of trees, for biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services such as carbon sequestration. Here,, we improve the foundation for effective conservation of global tree diversity by analyzing, a recently developed database of tree species covering 46,752 species. We quantify range, protection and anthropogenic pressures for each species and develop conservation priorities, across taxonomic, phylogenetic, and functional diversity dimensions. We also assess, the effectiveness of several influential proposed conservation prioritization frameworks to, protect the top 17% and top 50% of tree priority areas. We find that an average of, 50.2% of a tree species’ range occurs in 110-km grid cells without any protected areas, (PAs), with 6,377 small-range tree species fully unprotected, and that 83% of tree species, experience nonnegligible human pressure across their range on average. Protecting high priority, areas for the top 17% and 50% priority thresholds would increase the average, protected proportion of each tree species’ range to 65.5% and 82.6%, respectively, leaving, many fewer species (2,151 and 2,010) completely unprotected. The priority areas, identified for trees match well to the Global 200 Ecoregions framework, revealing that, priority areas for trees would in large part also optimize protection for terrestrial biodiversity, overall. Based on range estimates for >46,000 tree species, our findings show that a, large proportion of tree species receive limited protection by current PAs and are under, substantial human pressure. Improved protection of biodiversity overall would also, strongly benefit global tree diversity