Search

The 13th Global CRO Council (GCC) closed forum for bioanalysis was held in New Orleans, LA, USA on 5 April 2019. This GCC meeting was organized to discuss the contents of the 2019 ICH M10 Bioanalytical Method Validation Draft Guideline published in February 2019 and consolidate the feedback of the GCC members. While ICH M10 will cover requirements for reference standards, one of the biggest challenges facing the CRO community is the lack of consistency and completeness of Certificates of Analysis for reference standards used in regulated bioanalysis. Similar challenges exist with critical reagents (e.g., capture and detection antibodies) used for assays supporting biologics. The recommendations provided in this publication are the minimum requirements for the content that GCC members believe should be included in Certificates of Analysis for reference standards obtained from commercial vendors, sponsors and compendial suppliers, for use in regulated bioanalytical studies. In addition, recommendations for internal standards, metabolites and critical reagents are discussed.

For biosimilar drug development programs, it is essential to demonstrate that there are no clinically significant differences between the proposed biosimilar therapeutic (biosimilar) and its reference product (originator). Based on a stepwise comprehensive comparability exercise, the biosimilar must demonstrate similarity to the originator in physicochemical characteristics, biological activity, pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and safety, including immunogenicity. The goal of the immunogenicity assessment is to evaluate potential differences between the proposed biosimilar product and the originator product in the incidence and severity of human immune responses. Establishing that there are no clinically meaningful differences in the immune response between the products is a key element in the demonstration of biosimilarity. An issue of practical, regulatory, and financial importance is to establish whether a two-assay (based on the biosimilar and originator respectively) or a one-assay approach (based on the biosimilar) is optimal for the comparative immunogenicity assessment. This paper recommends the use of a single, biosimilar-based assay for assessing immunogenic similarity in support of biosimilar drug development. The development and validation of an ADA assay used for a biosimilar program should include all the assessments recommended for an innovator program (10-16, 29). In addition, specific parameters also need to be evaluated, to gain confidence that the assay can detect antibodies against both the biosimilar and the originator. Specifically, the biosimilar and the originator should be compared in antigenic equivalence, to assess the ability of the biosimilar and the originator to bind in a similar manner to the positive control(s), as well as in the confirmatory assay and drug tolerance experiments. Practical guidance for the development and validation of anti-drug antibody (ADA) assays to assess immunogenicity of a biosimilar in comparison to the originator, using the one-assay approach, are described herein.

Malignant mesotheliomas occur in the pleura, peritoneum, pericardium, and tunica vaginalis. The majority of tumors are pleural in origin. The typical pattern of spread is usually contiguous or via implantation. Hematogenous or lymphatic metastasis is not uncommon; however, metastasis to bone has rarely been well documented. This is a case report of malignant pleural mesothelioma metastatic to the femur with a pathologic fracture of femoral neck.