2010
DOI: 10.1016/j.tibtech.2010.07.001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic and immunogenicity comparability assessment strategies for monoclonal antibodies

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
68
0
3

Year Published

2011
2011
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 96 publications
(74 citation statements)
references
References 43 publications
3
68
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…Many regulatory systems take a different approach between biosimilars and generics, because the bioequivalence for a biosimilar product cannot be easily established [17]. This is due to their structural complexity, the use of living organisms for manufacturing processes, difficulties in achieving consistency of manufactured batches and sometimes complex long term effects of their patient administration.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Many regulatory systems take a different approach between biosimilars and generics, because the bioequivalence for a biosimilar product cannot be easily established [17]. This is due to their structural complexity, the use of living organisms for manufacturing processes, difficulties in achieving consistency of manufactured batches and sometimes complex long term effects of their patient administration.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These changes may lead to structural differences, resulting in efficacy modifications and with potential insurgence of adverse effects, i.e., immunogenicity. In these cases, further non-clinical and clinical evaluations might be needed to evaluate the product, depending on the extent of modifications brought [16,17].…”
Section: Challenges Faced By the Biosimilars Manufacturing Processmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Experience shows that some effects of relevant differences in structure or formulation can be detected at early stages like PK and hence, these results should be considered the first gate in a demonstration of similarity or cause for remediation before evaluations of clinical performance are initiated. 29 A unique characteristic of Biosimilar 2.0 products in comparison to their Biosimilar 1.0 predecessors is that many of these products will be mAbs, which are structurally more complex and may have more than one mechanism of action involved in their pharmacological effect through target-antigen binding, Fc-effector function(s) or Fc-receptor binding. Due to this structural and functional complexity, it is critical that any differences that exist between the various structural attributes of a biosimilar fusion molecule or mAb and its reference product are evaluated in nonclinical in vitro or in vivo pharmacology studies.…”
Section: ©2 0 1 1 L a N D E S B I O S C I E N C E D O N O T D I S Tmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…While immune responses to a TP can occur in nonclinical animal species, it is often not possible to predict immunogenicity in healthy subjects and patients from animal observations (9). Hence, clinical assessment of immunogenicity in the target population and evaluation of the resulting changes in pharmacokinetics (PK) as a surrogate for pharmacodynamic variables, safety, and efficacy in the individual subject is absolutely necessary (10,11). Moreover, there is an urgent need for further research in this area given the substantial increase in the number of biological products, including biosimilars, under clinical development.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%