Dennis M. Gross, MS, PhD CEO & Treasurer Pennsylvania Drug Discovery Institute © Dr. Dennis M. Gross 2015 Definitions: Large molecules Diff D Bi l i Differences: Drugs vs. Biologics Vaccines Case Studies from Production of Vaccines Development 1 Non‐clinical Clinical Future of Vaccines and Biologics 2 1 Vaccines Attenuated: M‐M‐R, Rotavirus, Varicella, Zostavax Killed or Inactivated: IPV, HepA Toxoids: Diphtheria; Tetanus; Sub‐unit: HepB; acellular Pertussis; VLP Vector‐based vaccine: Canary pox, Adenovirus, DNA: In research phase Peptide vaccine: Epitope vaccine, peptide immunogens (HER‐2/neu); Antibodies: MAbs Cytokines: Lymphokines (IFN, IL); monokines (IL,TNF); Interleukins (IL) Growth factors: Erythropoietin, VEGF Hormones: Steroids (estrogens); Polypeptides (Insulin, endorphins); etc. Gene Therapy Stem Cells: Embryonic, Adult 3 Drugs Synthetic, organic compounds Defined structure, physical & chemical characteristics chemical characteristics Chemical synthesis Small molecule (±1,000) Stable Homogeneous Biotransformed (metabolized) Linear dose‐response Activity not species specific Acetaminophen Mw = 151 4 2 Drugs Synthetic, organic compounds Defined structure, physical & chemical characteristics chemical characteristics Chemical synthesis Small molecule (±1,000) Stable Homogeneous Biotransformed (metabolized) Linear dose‐response Activity not species specific Acetaminophen Mw = 151 Biologics Protein‐, carbohydrate‐ or nucleic acid ‐based product Extracted from living organism Complex physicochemical structure Less well‐characterized Macromolecule (5,000 ‐>1,000,000) Tertiary structure Location, extent and type of glycosylation Heat‐ & shear‐ sensitive Non‐linear dose‐response Monoclonal antibody, Mw = ~150,000 5 6 3 Vaccine: A preparation of microorganisms (e.g., bacterium, virus), or their antigenic components administered for the prevention, amelioration or treatment of an infectious disease Biologic preparation that elicits immune response with memory Generates humoral (antibody) and/or cellular (cytotoxic or killer T‐cell) response to eliminate pathogen or pathogen infected cell The immune system is then primed to mount a secondary immune response with strong and immediate protection upon future exposure to ih di di i f the pathogen 7 1981 Hepatitis B Ref. Hilleman, Nature Medicine, 4, 504, 1998 Maurice Hilleman 1919 - 2005 Albert Sabin 1906 - 1993 Jonas Salk 1914 - 1995 1923 Diphtheria Louis Pasteur 1822 - 1895 Edward Jenner 1749 - 1823 1796 Smallpox 1780 1800 1926 Pertussis 1927 Tetanus 1840 1860 1880 1962 Oral Polio 1986 Hepatitis B p (Recombinant) 1963, 1968 Measles 1989 Hib Conjugate 1965 Japanese encephalitis 1995 Varicella 1967 Mumps 1996 Hepatitis A 1969 Rubella 1996 Hib-Hep B 1971, 1978 MMR 1996 DTacP 1974 Meningococcal 1998 Lyme 1977 1935 1956 Pneumococcal Yellow Fever Adenovirus 14-valent 1885 Rabies 1820 1955 Polio 1900 1920 1940 1983 Pneumococcal 23-valent 1960 1999 Pneumococcal conjugate 1980 2000 4 Smallpox Pertussis Diphtheria Polio Vaccines Hepatitis B vaccine Protection from Cholera Picture courtesy of Wellcome Library, London 9 17th century Chinese practice Vaccinating with scabs from smallpox patients smallpox patients 1796 ‐ Edward Jenner Vaccine made from pus of cowpox patients and milk maids Coined the term “vaccination” First recognized use of a vaccine No purification! 5 Whooping cough caused by B. pertussis, a small gram negative bacteria Vaccine ‐ suspension of killed whole cells of bacteria Whole cell pertussis vaccine first licensed in the US in 1914 Later combined with diphtheria and tetanus toxoids (DTP) in 1942 tetan s to oids (DTP) in 1942 Lack of purity caused some side effects Led to the development of acellular pertussis (subunit vaccine) Ref. Aunins, Lee and Volkin, in The Biomedical Engineering Handbook, CRC Press, Boca Raton, 1995 Respiratory infection caused by C. diphtheriae, a gram‐positive bacteria Diphtheria toxin, a polypeptide of 62 kDa MW, is formaldehyde treated to form toxoid First protein purified for active immunization Purity < 60% P it 60% protein impurities can crosslink with toxoid Ref. Rappuoli and Pizza in Vaccines, Eds. Perlman, P. and Wigzell, H., Springer, Heidelberg, 1999 6 Enders successfully cultivated virus in tissue culture (1949) Inactivated virus developed by Salk (1955) Oral polio (Live virus) developed by Sabin (1963) (1963) Oral polio (Live virus) developed by Sabin Less expensive and simple to use IPV Ref. Salk, JAMA, 151, 1081, 1953 OPV Ref. Aunins, in Encyclopedia of Cell Tech., Ed. Spier, Wiley & Sons, NY, 2000 13 Research & Development Upstream Processes Upstream Processes Production Downstream Processes Test Article Gene Discovery Cloning & Transfection Transformation Cell Line Development p Media Development Microbial Fermentation Mammalian Cell Culture Harvest Cells Cell Disruption Product Isolation Product Purification Analytical Tests 14 7 Research & Development Upstream Processes Upstream Processes Production Downstream Processes Product Gene Discovery Cloning & Transfection Transformation Cell Line Development p Media Development Microbial Fermentation Mammalian Cell Culture Harvest Cells Cell Disruption Product Isolation Product Purification Analytical Tests 15 Small‐scale (<10 L) ‐ Flasks (T‐flasks, Erlenmeyer, Spinners) ‐ Roller Bottles Mid‐scale (10 ‐ 250 L) ‐ Roller Bottles (automated handling) ‐ Nunc Cell Factories and Costar Cell cubes ‐ “Small” continuous stirred reactors ‐ Wave Bioreactors 16 8 Wave Bioreactors Large scale (> 250 L) engineered systems. ‐ suspended cells. ‐ suspended cells on ‘Microcarriers’. 18 9 Large scale (> 250 L) engineered systems. Images: Copyright Sanofi Pasteur , Amgen, and New York Times 19 20 10 21 22 11 23 24 12 25 26 13 27 28 14 29 Fever and jaundice of 2‐3 weeks duration Fever and jaundice of 2 3 weeks duration Transmitted by fecal oral route In US, spread through day care centers, residential institutions, restaurant food handlers Endemic in developing countries Vaccine development undertaken to minimize spread of disease 30 15 Ref. Aboud et al. (Merck & Co. Inc.), PCT WO 94/03589, 1994 1 2 3 4 5 31 6 7 8 9 1. LOW MW STANDARDS 2. LYSATE 3. LYSATE + BENZONASE 4. CAPTURE PRODUCT 5. PEG PELLET 6. SOLVENT EXTRACT 7. ION EXCHANGE PRODUCT 8. SIZE EXCLUSION PRODUCT 9. SIZE EXCLUSION PRODUCT 12% GEL WITH 200NG HAV ANTIGEN PER LANE 32 16 Resuspended PEG Pellet Sample Ion-Exchange Chromatography Product 660kDA Protein Hepatitis A Hepatitis A Aggregate 660kDA Protein Aggregate A 214nm 0 A 214nm 10 20 30 40 0 Solvent Extracted Aqueous Phase Sample 10 20 30 40 Size-Exclusion Chromatography Product Hepatitis A Hepatitis A 660kDA Protein Aggregate A 214nm 0 A 214nm 10 20 Minutes 30 40 0 10 20 Minutes 30 40 Hardware: Rainin HPLC system, TosoHaas TSK PW4000xl, 7.8 x 300 mm column Mobile phase: PBS, 0.32 ml/min, 50 l injection. Detection UV 214 nm 33 34 17 35 Pre‐clinical Drugs Toxicology in rodent and something else Hepatic microsome for CYP enzyme metabolism Safety pharmacology (CNS, cardiovascular, respiratory studies ICH S7) Carcinogenicity (Ames Test) Clinical Drug‐drug interactions Food‐drug interactions for oral administration Effect on QT/QTc & arrhythmic potential Pre‐Clinical Biologics T i l i l t i l Toxicology in relevant animal species Very difficult learning curve at the moment Don’t always get NOAEL (No Observed Adverse Event Level) Clinical PK and bioavailability but not metabolism Concomitant use (vaccines) Off‐target incorporation of material (DNA Vaccines) 36 18 To support entry into clinical trials, where human safety is ultimately evaluated Rare toxicities, or potential effects of sub‐populations often only addressable in humans Maximize the benefit‐to‐risk of vaccine development Determine a safe dose Identify any potential or unknown toxicities, target organs Broad measures ‐> unpredictable toxicity Specific assays ‐> key theoretical concerns 37 Inherent toxicity of the vaccine Inherent toxicity of the vaccine Toxicity of impurities/contaminants Toxicity due to interaction of components Toxicity linked to the immune response T i it li k d t th i induced Unknown unknowns (Black Swans) 38 19 Route of administration (ROA) and dose should correspond to clinically intended ROA and dose(s), e.g., oral, SC, IM, Nasal Total number of doses equal to or exceed number of clinically administered doses [“N plus 1”] Episodic dosing, e.g., weeks between doses 39 “Relevant” animal species An animal species susceptible to respond to the test article activity, e.g., development of an immune response after vaccination Ideally, species should be sensitive to the pathogenic organism or toxin One relevant animal species in general is sufficient Exceptions on a case‐by‐case Non‐human primates not generally necessary Group size dependent on the animal model 40 20 41 IND/ CTA NDA/ WMA/ BLA Phase I – First‐into‐Human 20‐100 normal healthy volunteers Determine safety and tolerability Determine safety and tolerability Phase IIa/IIb – Therapeutic Exploration 100‐300 patients Evaluate efficacy Determine dose range and adverse events (AEs) Phase III – Therapeutic Confirmation 1,000 to 15,000 patients Verify efficacy, monitor AEs and effect in usual therapy and special populations Phase IV – Post‐Approval Postmarketing surveillance Monitor long term risks and benefits, outcomes and pharmacoeconomics Phase V Postmarketing studies (Potentially thousands of patients) New indications: “Megatrials” 42 21 Sources: Clemens et al. JAMA 1996;275:390‐7 Levine MM. British Medical Bulletin 2002;62:1‐13 Promising vaccine candidate IND Phase I: Well‐tolerated and immunogenic in healthy adults? No Yes Phase II: Well‐tolerated and immunogenic in the target population? Yes No Phase III: Well‐tolerated and efficacious in the target population? 43 Phase III: Well‐tolerated and efficacious in the target population? No Subset assessed for immunogenicity y y p Antibody level may link with protection = CORRELATE OF PROTECTION Yes Phase IV: Assess effectiveness Sources: VacciNews 2002;1(6):1‐4 Clemens et al. JAMA 1996;275:390‐7 Levine MM. British Medical Bulletin 2002;62:1‐13 44 22 trial provides a more direct An Efficacy trial provides a more direct measurement of protection Efficacy‐ the protective effect of a vaccine against the target disease Protective Efficacy = incidence of disease in vaccinees 1- incidence of disease in nonvaccinees X 100% Sources: VacciNews 2002;1(6):1-4 Clemens et al. JAMA 1996;275:390-7 46 23 IND/ CTA NDA/ WMA/ BLA Phase I – First‐into‐Human 20‐100 normal healthy volunteers Determine safety and tolerability Determine safety and tolerability Phase IIa/IIb – Therapeutic Exploration 100‐300 patients Evaluate efficacy Determine dose range and adverse events (AEs) Phase III – Therapeutic Confirmation 1,000 to 15,000 patients Verify efficacy, monitor AEs and effect in usual therapy and special populations Phase IV – Post‐Approval Postmarketing surveillance Monitor long term risks and benefits, outcomes and pharmacoeconomics Phase V Postmarketing studies (Potentially thousands of patients) New indications: “Megatrials” 47 IND/ CTA NDA/ WMA/ BLA Phase I – First‐into‐Human 20‐100 normal healthy volunteers Determine safety and tolerability Determine safety and tolerability Phase IIa/IIb – Therapeutic Exploration 100‐300 patients Evaluate efficacy Determine dose range and adverse events (AEs) Phase III – Therapeutic Confirmation Possibly 60‐70,000 for a vaccine Verify efficacy, monitor AEs and effect in usual therapy and special populations Phase IV – Post‐Approval Postmarketing surveillance Monitor long term risks and benefits, outcomes and pharmacoeconomics Phase V Postmarketing studies (Potentially thousands of patients) New indications: “Megatrials” 48 24 : Rotavirus vaccine‐ 70,000 patients in 70 000 patients in ROTATEQ® : Rotavirus vaccine the pivotal trials worldwide ZOSTAVAX® : Shingles vaccine‐ 68,000 patients in the pivotal trials worldwide. 49 50 25 51 Biosimilars are to biologics what generics are to chemical Biosimilars are to biologics what generics are to chemical drugs Reference product g g Biological drug PATENT EXPIRY E Chemical drug Follow-on version Generic Biosimilars ((EU)) Follow-on Biologics (FOB, US) Subsequent-entry Biologic (SEB, Canada) Biotechnology Follow-on Product (Japan) Similar Biotherapeutic Product (SBP, WHO) Follow‐on versions are generally expected to deliver price discounts. 52 | DRA NBx Training - Biosimilars | Ulrike Jägle | 28 Oct 2009 | Business Use Only 52 26 Reduced cost of patient care – Political agenda Business opportunity pp y Expanding patient care Worldwide revenues for biotech drugs in 2014= $73.3 billion from sales on the top 10 approved products Average gross margins > 75% New products – New products 370 biotech drugs in clinical trials 370 biotech drugs in clinical trials New markets – global expansion Political Pressure ! 53 Humira (AbbVie) $12.5 Remicade (J&J) Remicade (J&J) $9 2 $9.2 Rituxn (Biogen) $8.7 Enbel (Amgen) $8.5 Lantus (Sanofi) $7.3 Avastin (Roche) $7.0 Herceptin (Roche) $6.8 Neulasta (Amgen) l (A ) $5.9 $ Prevnar (Pfizer) $4.5 Avonex (Biogen) $3.0 $0 Source: Statista $2 $4 $6 $8 $10 $12 $14 Revenue in Billions (US$) 27 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Enbrel Epogen/ Procrit Remicade Neulasta Aranesp Avastin Caduet Neupogen NovoLog Rituxan Humira Pegasys CabillyII Avonex Lantus Humalog Herceptin Rebif Synagis Byetta PegIntron Xolair Actemra 56 28 To date, Europe has approved 21 biosimilars with no significant safety issues in three classes: Human growth hormones Erythropoietins Recombinant Insulin To date, the US FDA has received only one BLA for a biosimilar: 24 July 2014 for Neupogen (filgrastim) from Sandoz which was approved but is tied‐up in court. The biosimilar market in the US is not likely to see its first launch until late 2015 and will not take shape until the 2017+ timeframe. 57 Biosimilarity – What is it? I t h bilit (G i b tit ti ?) Interchangeability (Generic substitution?) Patient Safety and Pharmacovigilance Naming Convention Use of Supportive Data and Information Whose data? What is the reference product (RP) with multiple entries 58 29 DRUG Branded Product Generic #2 Generic #2 Generic #1 Branded Product ? BIOSIMILAR Biosimilar #1 Biosimilar #2 ? 59 Biosimilarity – What is it? Interchangeability (Generic substitution?) Interchangeability (Generic substitution?) Patient Safety and Pharmacovigilance Naming Convention Use of Supportive Data and Information Whose data? What is the reference product (RP) with multiple entries What is the reference product (RP) with multiple entries Guidances EMA [2005] FDA [2012 draft document] 60 30 61 Year of Publication Country with Specific Guidelines 2005 EU 2007 Australia 2008 Malaysia, Turkey, Taiwan 2009 Japan, Korea, Singapore, WHO 2010 Brazil, Canada, Saudi Arabia, South Africa 2011 Argentina, Cuba, India, Iran, Mexico, Peru 2012 Colombia (draft), Egypt (draft), Jordan (draft), Thailand (draft) US (draft) 2014 EU (revised guidelines) 2015 China Source: Boren, J., Contract Pharma 17(5): 58 (2015) 62 31 Requirements for extensive Analytical Physico‐chemical Biological characterization The FDA will consider multiple factors in making study determinations: Product complexity Formulation Product stability Structure‐function relationships Manufacturing process Clinical experience with the reference product Drugs Synthetic, organic compounds Defined structure, physical & chemical characteristics chemical characteristics Chemical synthesis Small molecule Stable Homogeneous Biotransformed (metabolized) Activity not species specific Acetaminophen Mw = 151 Biologics Protein‐, carbohydrate‐ or nucleic acid ‐based product Extracted from living organism Complex physicochemical structure Less well‐characterized Macromolecule (5,000 ‐>1,000,000 ) Tertiary structure Location, extent and type of glycosylation Heat‐ & shear‐ sensitive Species specific activity Monoclonal antibody, Mw = ~150,000 64 32 65 Schellekens H. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2005 May;20 Suppl 4:iv31-36 66 33 67 68 34 • • • • The term refers to a rProtein that is in the same class as an existing biopharmaceutical but is not identical: It is i d th i i l improved over the original. Biobetters are not entirely new drugs and they aren’t generic versions of drugs, either. Biobetters are being developed using protein or glyco‐ engineering which it is hoped will reduce the risk of immunogenicity making the drug safer, more effective and requiring a lower dose. d ii l d A biobetter has the same target as the original but its effect on the target will hopefully last for an extended period of time. 69 • • • • Major advantage is that you are already pursuing a mechanism of action that is known and because they are considered a new drug, they will enjoy 12 years of market protection in the US unlike a biosimilar. However, it is not clear how much payors are willing to pay for biobetters benefits. Many believe that biosimilars will only be priced at Many believe that biosimilars will only be priced at a 20‐25% discount off the innovator’s product. If this is the case, one hopes the biobetters would economically rationalize a premium price. 70 35 POTENTIAL IMPEDIMENTS TO BIOSIMILAR MARKET UPTAKE INCLUDE: Regulatory Burden Name convention Clinical testing the FDA requires biosimilars to repeat Slow patient enrollment in studies Statutory Burden State laws intended to restrict substitution could have the effect of hindering market uptake of biosimilars Market Risks Market Risks It is unclear how insurance companies and government health care programs will handle coverage and reimbursement The perception of biosimilars and the general public will play a substantial role in determining biosimilar utilization. 71 “Predictions are difficult to make, especially about the future” Yogi Berra 72 36 dgross@padrugdiscovey.org +1.267.893.6777 37