6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Clinical trials for authorized biosimilars in the European Union: a systematic review

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Aim

          In 2006, Omnitrope (by Sandoz) was the first approved biosimilar in Europe. To date, 21 biosimilars for seven different biologics are on the market. The present study compared the clinical trials undertaken to obtain market authorization.

          Methods

          We summarized the findings of a comprehensive review of all clinical trials up to market authorization of approved biosimilars, using the European public assessment reports (EPARs) published by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). The features compared were, among others, the number of patients enrolled, the number of trials, the types of trial design, choice of endpoints and equivalence margins for pharmacokinetic (PK)/pharmacodynamic (PD) and phase III trials.

          Results

          The variability between the clinical development strategies is high. Some differences are explainable by the characteristics of the product; if, for example, the PD marker can be assumed to predict the clinical outcome, no efficacy trials might be necessary. However, even for products with the same reference product, the sample size, endpoints and statistical models are not always the same.

          Conclusions

          There seems to be flexibility for sponsors regarding the decision as to how best to prove biosimilarity.

          Related collections

          Most cited references32

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Zero-Inflated Poisson Regression, with an Application to Defects in Manufacturing

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            A comparison of the two one-sided tests procedure and the power approach for assessing the equivalence of average bioavailability.

            The statistical test of hypothesis of no difference between the average bioavailabilities of two drug formulations, usually supplemented by an assessment of what the power of the statistical test would have been if the true averages had been inequivalent, continues to be used in the statistical analysis of bioavailability/bioequivalence studies. In the present article, this Power Approach (which in practice usually consists of testing the hypothesis of no difference at level 0.05 and requiring an estimated power of 0.80) is compared to another statistical approach, the Two One-Sided Tests Procedure, which leads to the same conclusion as the approach proposed by Westlake based on the usual (shortest) 1-2 alpha confidence interval for the true average difference. It is found that for the specific choice of alpha = 0.05 as the nominal level of the one-sided tests, the two one-sided tests procedure has uniformly superior properties to the power approach in most cases. The only cases where the power approach has superior properties when the true averages are equivalent correspond to cases where the chance of concluding equivalence with the power approach when the true averages are not equivalent exceeds 0.05. With appropriate choice of the nominal level of significance of the one-sided tests, the two one-sided tests procedure always has uniformly superior properties to the power approach. The two one-sided tests procedure is compared to the procedure proposed by Hauck and Anderson.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The American College of Rheumatology preliminary core set of disease activity measures for rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials. The Committee on Outcome Measures in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trials.

              To develop a set of disease activity measures for use in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) clinical trials, as well as to recommend specific methods for assessing each outcome measure. This is not intended to be a restrictive list, but rather, a core set of measures that should be included in all trials. We evaluated disease activity measures commonly used in RA trials, to determine which measures best met each of 5 types of validity: construct, face, content, criterion, and discriminant. The evaluation consisted of an initial structured review of the literature on the validity of measures, with an analysis of data obtained from clinical trials to fill in gaps in this literature. A committee of experts in clinical trials, health services research, and biostatistics reviewed the validity data. A nominal group process method was used to reach consensus on a core set of disease activity measures. This set was then reviewed and finalized at an international conference on outcome measures for RA clinical trials. The committee also selected specific ways to assess each outcome. The core set of disease activity measures consists of a tender joint count, swollen joint count, patient's assessment of pain, patient's and physician's global assessments of disease activity, patient's assessment of physical function, and laboratory evaluation of 1 acute-phase reactant. Together, these measures sample the broad range of improvement in RA (have content validity), and all are at least moderately sensitive to change (have discriminant validity). Many of them predict other important long-term outcomes in RA, including physical disability, radiographic damage, and death. Other disease activity measures frequently used in clinical trials were not chosen for any one of several reasons, including insensitivity to change or duplication of information provided by one of the core measures (e.g., tender joint score and tender joint count). The committee also proposes specific ways of measuring each outcome. We propose a core set of outcome measures for RA clinical trials. We hope this will decrease the number of outcomes assessed and standardize outcomes assessments. Further, we hope that these measures will be found useful in long-term studies.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                bernd.jilma@meduniwien.ac.at
                Journal
                Br J Clin Pharmacol
                Br J Clin Pharmacol
                10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2125
                BCP
                British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                0306-5251
                1365-2125
                05 September 2016
                December 2016
                05 September 2016
                : 82
                : 6 ( doiID: 10.1111/bcp.v82.6 )
                : 1444-1457
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Statistical MethodologyNovartis Pharma AG 4056 BaselSwitzerland
                [ 2 ] Department of Clinical PharmacologyMedical University of Vienna 1090 ViennaAustria
                [ 3 ] Center for Medical Statistics, Informatics and Intelligent SystemsMedical University of Vienna 1090 ViennaAustria
                Author notes
                [*] [* ]Correspondence Bernd Jilma, Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Medical University of Vienna, 1090 Vienna, Austria. Tel.: +14 04 002 9810; Fax: +14 04 002 9980; E‐mail: bernd.jilma@ 123456meduniwien.ac.at
                Article
                BCP13076 REV-00219-16.R1
                10.1111/bcp.13076
                5099555
                27580073
                8eb6627e-83e9-4909-96a8-26b41d6872d6
                © 2016 The Authors. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Pharmacological Society.

                This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 16 March 2016
                : 17 June 2016
                : 26 July 2016
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 5, Pages: 14, Words: 5645
                Categories
                Systematic Review
                Systematic Reviews
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                bcp13076
                December 2016
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_NLMPMC version:4.9.7 mode:remove_FC converted:08.11.2016

                Pharmacology & Pharmaceutical medicine
                biosimilar drug development programmes,biosimilarity,biosimilars,ema,epar,trial design

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content1,025

                Cited by7

                Most referenced authors232