INTRODUCTION:

Overview:

Biologic pharmaceuticals are an innovative category of treatments that are derived from living cells and organisms, which sets them apart from conventional chemical drugs. These medications have led to substantial progress in the management of intricate illnesses such as cancer, autoimmune disorders, and rare genetic problems. Pharmaceuticals, in contrast to conventional pharmaceuticals, are produced using biological processes rather than chemical synthesis. These complex chemicals are often generated using living systems like bacteria, yeast, or mammalian cells.

Due to their intricate nature, the development of biologics is a laborious and costly procedure that necessitates the use of cutting-edge technology and meticulous testing to guarantee both safety and efficacy.

Consequently, biologics often have a higher cost compared to conventional medications. Biosimilars have been introduced to mitigate the exorbitant expenses and enhance the availability. Biosimilars are essentially replicas of original biologic medications (often known as "reference products") that are no longer protected by patents. Due to the intricate nature of biologics, it is not feasible to produce an identical copy, which is why the word "biosimilar" is used.^1,2Ensuring the safety and effectiveness of biosimilars is of utmost importance in their development and regulation as viable alternatives to their original biologic counterparts. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) have implemented rigorous regulations for the licensing of biosimilars. These principles guarantee that biosimilars closely correspond to the reference biologics in terms of safety, efficacy, and purity. Although there are rules in place, there are still some difficulties in demonstrating the interchangeable use of biosimilars and their reference biologics without negatively affecting patient outcomes.

To summarise, the use of biosimilars has the capacity to substantially decrease healthcare expenses and enhance patient availability to vital treatments. Nevertheless, the intricacies associated with the development, regulation, and safety assurance of these medications necessitate a comprehensive comprehension of both biologics and biosimilars. This issue explores the fundamental distinctions between these two categories of medications, the regulatory framework that governs their use, and the persistent obstacles in their advancement and implementation in the healthcare field.^3,4

Biological medications, often known as biologics, have distinct differences from typical pharmaceuticals in terms of their molecular scale and the intricacy of their manufacturing processes. Size at the molecular level Biologics are significantly greater in size compared to conventional medications. For example, let's examine the anticancer drug paclitaxel, which is a conventional small-molecule medication with a molecular weight of 854 Daltons (Da). On the other hand, the biological medication filgrastim, which is also referred to as Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor (G-CSF), has a molecular weight of 18,000 Da, which is more than 20 times more in size. Monoclonal antibodies, which are a different kind of biologic, have larger molecular sizes that range from 145,000 to 160,000 Da. The substantial disparity in size is a distinctive characteristic of biologics and has implications for their production, administration, and physiological effects.^5,6,7

Production Procedure:

The manufacturing process for biological medications is significantly more intricate compared to that of conventional small-molecule pharmaceuticals. The method commences at the genetic level, where the gene accountable for synthesising the required protein is initially discovered and replicated into a complementary DNA (cDNA) vector. This vector serves as a schematic for the protein.

Subsequently, the cDNA vector is inserted into a recipient cell, such as E. coli bacterium or yeast. Upon entering the host cell, the vector directs the cell to synthesise the particular protein. Nevertheless, it is important to note that not all cells have the ability to manufacture the protein with high efficiency. Therefore, a meticulous selection process is necessary in order to find the cell lines that are most capable of producing the protein.

Subsequently, these specific cells are cultivated in a regulated setting, typically in spacious bioreactors containing a fermentation solution that promotes cellular proliferation and protein synthesis.^8,

Once the cells have generated a sufficient amount of the protein, the subsequent task is to extract and refine it. The purification process is complex and comprises multiple stages to eliminate contaminants and guarantee the safety of the end product for human consumption. This step is essential since even slight contaminants might lead to substantial negative effects.

Quality control is a crucial component of the production process for biological drugs. Prior to commencing large-scale production, it is imperative to verify the DNA sequence of the cloned gene in order to guarantee the creation of the accurate protein. The confirmation is commonly performed by methods such as Southern blot analysis of total cellular DNA or sequence analysis of messenger RNA (mRNA). Quality checks are conducted both prior to and during the large-scale fermentation process in order to guarantee uniformity and safety.

Authorisation by regulatory bodies and current patterns in the market In the last ten years, there has been anotable rise in the quantity of biological medications that have been granted regulatory approval. During the early 1990s, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted approval to less than 15 biological agents. Nevertheless, in the mid-2000s, the quantity of authorised biologics exceeded that of conventional small- molecule medications. In 2009, 38% of all pipeline products in the pharmaceutical business were biologicals in phase III clinical trials. The transition from conventional pharmaceuticals to biologics is also evident in current commercial patterns. The global sales of biological pharmaceuticals in 2009 amounted to an impressive $130 billion.

The expiration of patents and the subsequent emergence of biosimilars

Similar to conventional pharmaceuticals, the majority of recently authorised biological drugs are safeguarded by patents. Typically, these patents have a duration of 20 years starting from the date of filing, which normally takes place prior to the commencement of clinical trials. Several initial biologics, including erythropoietin and G-CSF, were created in the early 1990s, and their patents have since lapsed. Furthermore, the patents for intricate biologics, including monoclonal antibodies like rituximab and trastuzumab, are scheduled to terminate in the coming years. The upcoming wave of patent expirations carries substantial financial consequences. By 2016, almost $64 billion worth of biological medicines will have their patent protection expire, allowing for generic competition.

Nevertheless, due to the intricate nature of biologics production, the resulting generics will not possess an identical composition to the original medications. Instead, these treatments are referred to as biosimilars, which are substantially identical to their reference biologics but may have slight variations in clinically inactive components.

Significant investment in research and manufacturing is necessary for the development of biosimilars in order to guarantee compliance with stringent regulatory standards. Notwithstanding these difficulties, the potential market for biosimilars is vast, leading numerous pharmaceutical companies to make substantial investments in this emerging category of medications.

Biological medications can be distinguished from regular pharmaceuticals based on their substantial molecular size and intricate manufacturing procedures. The pharmaceutical sector is undergoing substantial changes due to the rapid expansion in the approval and market share of biologics, as well as the approaching patent expirations. This includes the emergence of biosimilars.^9,10,11

The Rise of Biosimilars:

Biosimilars are a novel category of medications that are intentionally developed to closely resemble, although not be identical to, already existing biological therapies. In contrast to generic medications, which just require replication of the chemical structure of the active ingredient. For biosimilars, it is crucial that both the protein structure and the protein folding closely resemble those of the original biological medication. The folding of proteins is significantly impacted by glycosylation, which in turn has a profound effect on their stability and function. Glycosylation is the enzymatic process of attaching polysaccharides (sugars) to proteins, lipids, or other organic molecules. It is important in the production of biopharmaceuticals. The glycosylation patterns of the medicine can differ based on the manufacturing method, which might impact its stability, cellular interactions, and overall effectiveness.^12,13,14

Creating an identical copy of a biological medicine is exceptionally difficult because of the intricate glycosylation patterns involved. Biosimilar companies lack access to the unique production data of the original brand company, posing challenges in replicating the original product's glycosylation pattern. Due to the current technological limitations, it is extremely challenging to develop a biological medication that can be completely substituted with the original. Consequently, there has been a change in attention towards the development of biosimilars, which are medications that are physiologically and therapeutically similar to the original medicine, although not identical. The level of comparability for a biosimilar is usually evaluated on an individual product basis.

In the United States, biosimilars are known as "Follow-on Biologics," while in Canada, they are referred to as "Subsequent Entry Biologics." The regulatory approval process for biosimilars in developed markets differs from that for generic pharmaceuticals. Manufacturers of generic pharmaceuticals are merely need to prove that their product has pharmacokinetics that are equivalent to the original product.

Pharmacokinetics refers to how the medication is absorbed, distributed, metabolised, and eliminated. There is no requirement for them to demonstrate that their product has same pharmacodynamic effects or clinical results. Upon approval, generic medications are deemed completely interchangeable with the original product, therefore allowing for substitution without any concerns regarding disparities in therapeutic effects.

Nevertheless, despite obtaining regulatory approval, biosimilars are presently not considered interchangeable with the original reference product. The heterogeneity in the final output of biological pharmaceuticals is a result of the intricate and precise nature of their manufacturing process. An exemplification from history serves to elucidate this assertion: During the 1990s, a subset of patients undergoing renal dialysis experienced a serious disease known as red cell aplasia (RCA) following therapy with subcutaneous epoetin alfa. Upon examination, it was discovered that a minor alteration in the drug's composition, notably the elimination of human serum albumin and its substitution with polysorbate 80 and glycine as stabilisers, probably resulted in the production of antibodies against erythropoietin, leading to the occurrence of RCA. This case demonstrates that even slight alterations in the development of a biological medicine can result in significant side outcomes and difficulties.¹⁵

The matter of interchangeability is a crucial consideration in the process of developing and approving biosimilars. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) lacks the jurisdiction to classify a biosimilar as interchangeable with the reference product in Europe. Nevertheless, in the United States, the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act grants the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the authority to officially classify a biosimilar as interchangeable. If a biosimilar is classified as interchangeable, chemists would have the authority to replace it with the reference product without requiring approval from the prescribing physician.

An important argument against interchangeability is the lack of access that biosimilar developers have to the quality and consistency data of the original brand product. This might raise concerns regarding the safety and effectiveness of biosimilars. Nevertheless, it is crucial to acknowledge that even branded biological medications have alterations over time as a result of variations in their manufacturing procedures or when production takes place in other locations. Therefore, it is suggested that regulatory bodies officially acknowledge this heterogeneity and utilise it to create permissible thresholds for assessing biosimilars. This technique would aid in guaranteeing that biosimilars adhere to the requisite criteria for safety, effectiveness, and quality, while also resolving apprehensions over interchangeability.

CONCLUSION:

The introduction of biosimilars represents a notable advancement in the pharmaceutical sector, providing a more affordable substitute for costly biological medications. Nevertheless, the intricate nature of biological pharmaceuticals, particularly in relation to protein structure, glycosylation patterns, and manufacturing procedures, poses significant obstacles in producing precise duplicates. Biosimilars differ from generic pharmaceuticals in that they cannot be completely identical to their reference products. This creates regulatory and clinical difficulties when it comes to determining their interchangeability. As the market for biosimilars expands, it is imperative for regulatory authorities to meticulously evaluate and control these variances in order to guarantee the safety and effectiveness of biosimilars. Although biosimilars provide potential for lowering healthcare expenses and increasing patient availability of essential treatments, the industry must persist in managing the intricate technical and regulatory challenges that differentiate them from conventional pharmaceuticals.

Due to the intricate nature of the manufacturing process for biosimilars, which incorporates living micro-organisms, there is a valid concern regarding both immediate and long-term immunological reactions. In addition to the shortened approval process that requires a smaller number of patients compared to the original product, post-approval pharmacovigilance programs will also be necessary to determine the safety and effectiveness of the drug in different uses. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that biosimilars of somatropin, epoetin alfa, and filgrastim have been utilised in Europe for a minimum of 4 years without any documented instances of significant adverse events reported to the European Medicines Agency (EMA). However, in order to ensure patient safety, authorities in other countries should consider replicating the European approach by involving all relevant parties in the development of sensible approval biosimilars and their capacity to reduce healthcare expenditures will rely on the acquisition of data before and after approval to tackle the numerous ambiguities.¹⁷

REFRENCES:

1. Minghetti P, Rocco P, Del Vecchio L, et al. Biosimilars and regulatory authorities. Nephron Clin Pract. 2010;117:c1-7.

2. McCamish M, Woollett G. Worldwide experience with biosimilars development. MAbs. 2011;3:209-17.

3. Reichert JM, Beck A. European medicines workshop on biosimilars monoclonal antibodies. MAbs. 2009;1:394-405.

4. Draft guideline on biosimilar medicines containing monoclonal antibodies released for consultation, November 26, 2011 [online]. Available from: http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index [Accessed 2011 Nov 26].

5. Schellekens H. Bioequivalence and the immunogenicity of biopharmaceuticals. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2002;1:457-62.

6. Schellekens H. Biosimilar therapeutic agents: issues with bioequivalence and immunogenicity. Eur J Clin Invest. 2004;34:797-9.

7. Roger SD, Mikhail A. Biosimilars: opportunity or cause for concern? J Pharm Sci. 2007;10:405-10.

8. Chirino AJ, Ary ML, Marshall SA. Minimizing the immunogenicity of protein therapeutics. Drug Discov Today. 2004;9:82-90.

9. Health Canada. Draft guidance for sponsors: information and submission requirements for subsequent entry biologics [online]. Available from: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/brgtherap/activit/consultation/seb-pbu/2008-tc-tmeng.php [Accessed 2010 Nov 26].

10. Iyer H. European medicines workshop on biosimilars monoclonal antibodies: perspectives from India. MAbs. 2009;1:411-3.

11. Merrill J. Opening a door to biosimilars in the US, October 2, 2010 [online]. Available from: http://www.windhover.com/windhover/content/home.aspx [Accessed 2010 Nov 26].

12. Whalen J. Roche CEO girds for first biotech fight. Wall Street Journal. 2010 Nov 2.

13. Rajan S. Dr Reddy’s launches darbepoetin alpha in India under the brand name Cresp [online]. Available from: http://www.fiercepharma.com/press_releases/dr-reddys-launches-darbepoetin-alfa-india-under-brand-name-cresp [Accessed 2011 Jan 5].

14. Crandall MA. World markets for biogenerics. New York (NY): Kalorama Information; 2008. p. 79-80.

15. Razvan R. Rituximab biosimilar to be developed by Spectrum Pharmaceuticals and Viropro [online]. Available from: http://www.genengnews.com/gen-news-highlights/rituximab-biosimilar-to-be-developed-by-spectrum-and-viropro/81244470 [Accessed 2011 Jan 5].

16. Ariyanchira S. The opportunity for India in the global biosimilars market [online]. Available from: http://www.pharmaphorum.com/2010/06/21/the-opportunity-for-india-in-the-global-biosimilars-market [Accessed 2011 Jan 5].

17. Rockoff JD, Loftus P. Pfizer pushes on new biotech drugs. Wall Street Journal. 2010 Apr 28 [online]. Available from: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704464704575208580328253618.html [Accessed 2011 Jan 8].

Received on 18.09.2024 Revised on 21.10.2024

Accepted on 15.11.2024 Published on 03.03.2025

Available online from March 07, 2025

Asian J. Res. Pharm. Sci. 2025; 15(1):77-80.

DOI: 10.52711/2231-5659.2025.00011

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Creative Commons License.