Reference Product In Terms Research Articles

Comparative Safety Profiles of Oncology Biosimilars vs. Originators in Europe: An Analysis of the EudraVigilance Database.

In the last decades, the clinical management of oncology patients has been transformed by the introduction of biologics. The high costs associated with the development and production of biologics limit patient access to these therapies. The expiration of exclusive patents for biologics has led to the development and market introduction of biosimilars, offering the reduction of costs for cancer treatments. Biosimilars are highly similar to the reference products in terms of structure, biological activity, efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity. Therefore, the monitoring of biosimilars' safety in real-world clinical practice though pharmacovigilance is essential. This study aimed to analyze the post-marketing pharmacovigilance data of biosimilar monoclonal antibodies used in oncology and compare them with respective reference products. Data of a 2-year period (1 January 2021-31 December 2022) were retrieved from EudraVigilance, and descriptive and comparative analysis were performed using the Reporting Odds Ratio to evaluate the distribution of medicine-reaction pairs related to biosimilars of three antitumor biological products and their corresponding reference products: bevacizumab, rituximab, and trastuzumab. The results showed that most frequently reported ADRs for biosimilars were non-serious and consistent with the safety profiles of reference products. These findings provide reassurance regarding safety equivalence of biosimilars and support their use as valid alternatives to originator biologics.

Comparing efficacy and safety of P013, a proposed pertuzumab biosimilar, with the reference product in HER2-positive breast cancer patients: a randomized, phase III, equivalency clinical trial

BackgroundBreast cancer is the most frequently diagnosed cancer and the leading reason for cancer-related death among women. Neoadjuvant treatment with dual-HER2 (human epidermal growth factor receptor 2) blockade has shown promising effects in this regard. The present study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of a proposed pertuzumab biosimilar with the reference pertuzumab.MethodsThis randomized, phase III, multicenter, equivalency clinical trial was conducted on chemotherapy-naive women with HER2-positive breast cancer. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive six cycles of either P013 (CinnaGen, Iran) or the originator product (Perjeta, Roche, Switzerland) along with trastuzumab, carboplatin, and docetaxel every 3 weeks. Patients were stratified by cancer type (operable, locally advanced, inflammatory) and hormone receptor status. The primary endpoint was breast pathologic complete response (bpCR). Secondary endpoints included comparisons of total pCR, overall response rate (ORR), breast-conserving surgery (BCS), safety, and immunogenicity.ResultsTwo hundred fourteen patients were randomized to treatment groups. bpCR rate in the per-protocol population was 67.62% in the P013 and 71.57% in the reference drug groups. Based on bpCR, P013 was equivalent to the reference pertuzumab with a mean difference of − 0.04 (95% CI: − 0.16, 0.09). Secondary endpoints were also comparable between the two groups.ConclusionsThe proposed biosimilar P013 was equivalent to the reference product in terms of efficacy. The safety of both medications was also comparable.

Establishing Analytical and Functional Comparability for Biosimilars

A biosimilar is a drug product that has been deemed to be highly similar to its off-patent reference product in terms of purity, molecular structure, and bioactivity. Approvals to such products are granted on the basis of unambiguous demonstration of “no clinically meaningful differences” between the reference and the intended biosimilar. For a successful biosimilar approval, establishing analytical and functional biosimilarity across all relevant critical quality attributes is an essential prerequisite. This critical activity is performed using a combination of orthogonal, high-resolution tools that can accurately quantitate the minor differences that exist. In this article, we review key findings from some of the recent biosimilarity assessments that we have published on biosimilars of granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), insulin glargine, rituximab, and trastuzumab.

Biosimilars: Fundamentals and authorization as per U.S. perspective

Biosimilars are biological products that are the replicas of their innovator biopharmaceuticals. At the moment, biological products account for 10 -15% of the total pharmaceutical market. More than one-fifth of new medicines launched on the world market each year are now biotechnology derived. These are developed after patent expiration of innovator biopharmaceuticals and are submitted for separate marketing approval. In view of the structural and manufacturing complexities of biopharmaceuticals, biosimilars should not be considered as biological generics. Each class of biologic varies in its benefit and risk profile, the nature and frequency of adverse events, the breadth of clinical indications and whether surrogate markers for efficacy are available and validated. But most of the countries do not have specific guidelines for potential market of biological products. Following the legislation that allowed the FDA to approve biosimilars in the United States, biological products that are similar to the reference product in terms of safety, purity and potency are gradually entering into the market. To date, only five biosimilars have been approved in the U. S. although many agents are currently undergoing trials and may soon become available. This article will address the differences between biosimilars and generics, issues concern with the approval process, use of biosimilars and need.

Physicochemical and functional characterization of MYL-1501D, a proposed biosimilar to insulin glargine.

Insulin glargine is a long-acting analogue of human insulin that has been used to manage hyperglycemia in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) for nearly 20 years. Insulin glargine has a relatively constant concentration-time profile that mimics basal levels of insulin and allows for once-daily administration. MYL-1501D is a biosimilar insulin glargine designed to offer greater access of insulin glargine to patients, with comparable efficacy and safety to the marketed reference product. We conducted a comprehensive panel of studies based on a formal analysis of critical quality attributes to characterize the structural and functional properties of MYL-1501D and reference insulin glargine products available in the United States and European Union. MYL-1501D was comprehensively shown to have high similarity to the reference products in terms of protein structure, metabolic activity (both in vitro cell-based assays and in vivo rabbit bioassays), and in vitro cell-based assays for mitogenic activity. The structural analyses demonstrated that the primary protein sequence was identical, and secondary and tertiary structures are similar between the proposed biosimilar and the reference products. Insulin receptor binding affinity and phosphorylation studies also established analytical similarity. MYL-1501D demonstrated high similarity in different metabolic assays of glucose uptake, adipogenesis activity, and inhibition of stimulated lipolysis. Rabbit bioassay studies showed MYL-1501D and EU-approved insulin glargine are highly similar to US-licensed insulin glargine. These product quality studies show high similarity between MYL-1501D and licensed or approved insulin glargine products and suggest the potential of MYL-1501D as an alternative cost-effective treatment option for patients and clinicians.

Efficacy and Safety of Proposed Bevacizumab Biosimilar BE1040V in Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Phase III, Randomized, Double-blind, Noninferiority Clinical Trial

PurposeThe purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of a proposed bevacizumab biosimilar to those of the reference product in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). MethodsThis Phase III, multicenter, randomized, double-blind (patient- and assessor-blind), active-controlled, 2-armed, parallel-group, noninferiority trial was conducted in patients with histologically verified colorectal cancer with evidence of at least 1 metastasis. Patients with mCRC were randomized 2:1 to receive 5 mg/kg IV of either study drug plus FOLFIRI-3 (with repeated irinotecan 100 mg/m2 60-min infusion on day 3) or the reference drug plus FOLFIRI-3 every 2 weeks for 1 year. Progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary end point, and overall survival, objective response rate, and time to treatment failure as well as safety and immunogenicity were secondary end points. The population assessable for PFS was per protocol, and the intention-to-treat population was used for sensitivity analysis. Safety was assessed based on reports of adverse events, laboratory test results, and vital sign measurements. FindingsA total of 126 patients were enrolled; PFS values in the biosimilar and reference arms were 232 days (7.7 months) and 210 days (7 months), respectively (P = 0.47). The hazard ratio of the biosimilar arm versus the reference arm was 0.79 in the per-protocol population (90% CI, 0.46–1.35; P = 0.47). The upper limit for the 2-sided 90% CI was lower than the margin of 1.44, indicating that the biosimilar drug was noninferior to the reference drug. The hazard ratio for overall survival in the intent-to-treat population was 0.99 (95% CI, 0.55–1.80; P = 0.99). The difference between other efficacy end points among the groups was not statistically significant. No significant difference was observed in the comparison of the two arms for safety. The antidrug antibody was positive in 1 patient in each arm. ImplicationsThe proposed biosimilar BE1040V was noninferior to the reference product in terms of efficacy in the treatment of mCRC, and tolerability was comparable between the 2 drugs. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03288987.

Pharmacist perspectives and considerations for implementation of therapeutic oncology biosimilars in practice.

An overview of therapeutic oncology biosimilars, the U.S. biosimilars regulatory pathway, and the clinical development of selected biosimilar products is provided, including discussion of considerations in adopting biosimilars into oncology practice. Biosimilars are biologic agents that are highly similar to and have no clinically meaningful differences from an approved reference product in terms of safety, purity, and potency. There is a large market for cancer biologics, and approval of biosimilars has the potential to increase access to care and reduce costs. An abbreviated regulatory pathway for the development and approval of biosimilars defines a stepwise approach to demonstrating biosimilarity and conducting clinical comparative trials to confirm equivalent pharmacokinetics, efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity to the reference product. Three therapeutic biologics (bevacizumab, trastuzumab, and rituximab) have been used extensively in the treatment of a variety of cancers and are targets for biosimilar product development. Preclinical and clinical experience with 2 recently approved biosimilars to bevacizumab and trastuzumab is reviewed. Challenges faced by pharmacy and therapeutics committees when considering oncology biosimilars for formulary inclusion are discussed. Increased adoption of biosimilars could potentially lower treatment costs and improve access to biologics for patients with cancer. Key considerations in formulary review of biosimilars include the quality and quantity of data from comparative clinical trials, economic factors, manufacturer reliability, and challenges associated with incorporating biosimilars into practice.

Challenges in Post-marketing Studies of Biological Drugs in the Era of Biosimilars: A Report of the International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology 2019 Mid-Year Meeting in Rome, Italy.

Several controversial issues related to challenges in the post-marketing studies of biological drugs, including biosimilars, were discussed at the International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology (ISPE) 2019 Mid-Year Meeting in Rome (Italy) in April. In recent years, the marketing of biosimilars has been growing, thus offering opportunities for wider access by patients to high-cost biological drugs as well as ensuring the economic sustainability of national healthcare systems. Through the comparability exercise required for marketing approval, the similarity of biosimilars to the reference products in terms of efficacy, safety and quality has to be demonstrated in pre-marketing studies. In Europe, the 15years of experience of marketing of biosimilars has allowed the accumulation of a significant amount of scientific evidence confirming the comparability of the benefit-risk profile of biosimilars and originators. However, some aspects remain to be addressed both from a scientific and regulatory perspective, such as interchangeability and the automatic substitution of originators and biosimilars. The (long-term) monitoring of all biological drugs, including biosimilars, in real-world settings is warranted, with the ultimate goal of integrating pre- and post-marketing evidence relating to the aforementioned open questions. This conference report describes priorities, data sources and methodological strategies for the post-marketing surveillance of biological drugs in the era of biosimilars.

Biological Characterization of SB3, a Trastuzumab Biosimilar, and the Influence of Changes in Reference Product Characteristics on the Similarity Assessment.

BackgroundSB3 has been developed as a trastuzumab biosimilar, a therapeutic monoclonal antibody targeted to human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), and approved by the European Commission and United States (US) Food and Drug Administration (FDA). During the developmental period of a biosimilar, setting an appropriate quality target is critical for assessing the similarity of the biosimilar product to the reference product. A stepwise approach should be taken to assessing similarity, beginning with extensive characterization of the reference product to establish the quality target.ObjectiveIn this study, we evaluated the similarity of SB3 to the reference product and the impact of changes in the biological profile of the reference product on similarity assessment.MethodsAnalytical similarity was assessed with defined test procedures in terms of critical quality attributes (CQAs) that could affect efficacy, potency, and safety, as well as for the non-CQAs that are related to process consistency. The quality target was established using up to 154 lots of European Union (EU)- and US-sourced Herceptin® (reference product), analyzed during the developmental period of SB3.ResultsTrends of the EU- and US-sourced reference product showed that the biological profile exhibited two marked changes for Fc-related attributes, and then recovered to pre-change quality level. Since the similarity range set by pre-change lots was considered most relevant, the changed lots were excluded from establishing the similarity range, which resulted in tightened acceptance criteria. As shown in the results of similarity assessment using the stringent quality target ranges, SB3 exhibits highly similar functional activities compared to the reference product in terms of both CQAs and non-CQAs.ConclusionSB3 has been developed as a trastuzumab biosimilar approved in the EU and USA, and its manufacturing process is deemed to be robust and well-controlled within stringent quality target ranges.

Biological Therapies in Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases: Can Biosimilars Reduce Access Inequities?

Biological therapies are an effective treatment for a range of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs), including rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, and inflammatory bowel diseases. However, due to their high costs, considerable differences in their utilization exist across the world, even among the various European countries, with many countries restricting access despite professional society guideline recommendations. Adoption of biologics by healthcare providers has been particularly poor in many Central and Eastern European countries. Differences in utilization have also been observed across medical specialties, healthcare providers, and at a regional and national level. The objective of this paper is to provide an overview of the different market access policies for biologics in Europe and to investigate reasons for such differences. One of the potential solutions for providing broader access to IMID patients, where cost is the major barrier, is to encourage the use of biosimilars in place of their reference products. Biosimilars are generally less expensive alternatives to already licensed biological therapies and are approved on the basis that they are similar to the reference product in terms of quality, safety, and efficacy. Budget impact models predict considerable cost savings following the introduction of biosimilars in the next few years. These savings could be used to increase access to biologics and other innovative therapies.

Biosimilar biological drugs in the treatment of inflammatory bowel diseases.

Within the last 20 years, tumour necrosis factor inhibitors have been proven to be effective in achieving and maintaining clinical and endoscopic remission in patients with Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis. Since 2013, when infliximab originator lost its patent protection, patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs) in Poland have also been treated with biosimilar drugs. Biosimilars are drugs with high similarity to their reference products in terms of physicochemical properties, including structure, safety, and efficacy. Biosimilars are approved for use on the basis of the same rigorous quality standards as their reference products. In 2018, also biosimilars of adalimumab have become available. Studies published to date have shown that biosimilars do not differ from reference drugs in terms of the efficacy and safety. There are numerous data to confirm that a single switch of biological drugs (mainly from reference to biosimilar drugs) has no effect on therapy efficacy and safety. However, a significantly lower cost of therapy with biosimilars not only allows us to treat a much larger number of patients but may also necessitate multiple switches from reference drugs to biosimilars (including biosimilars produced by different manufacturers). Recently, the first results have been published concerning multiple switches in patients with psoriasis and rheumatoid arthritis. However, no such data are currently available for patients with IBDs.

Multicentric, randomized, double-blind, comparative study in STEMI patients to establish clinical biosimilarity of biosimilar tenecteplase with reference product

Objectives: Tenecteplase (TNK) is an established third-generation class 1A thrombolytic. The objective of the present study was to establish clinical biosimilarity of TNK biosimilar in a comparative phase III study with the reference product in the patients of ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Materials and Methods: In the double-blind, randomized, comparative clinical study 105 individuals were enrolled (70 in biosimilar TNK arm and 35 in the reference arm). Primary endpoint was thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) 3-flow rate of the infarct-related artery at 90 min and all-cause mortality rate at 30 days' post dosing. Secondary endpoints considered were 50% resolution of elevated ST segment at 90 min, re-infarction till day 30, change in the left ventricular ejection fraction at day 30, events of ventricular tachyarrhythmias till day 30, and comparative pharmacokinetics. Immunogenicity was assessed along with the evaluation of safety at day 30. Results: TIMI grade 3-flow rate was achieved in 29 (43.28%) individuals in biosimilar arm and 14 (41.18%) individuals in the reference arm. The difference between the groups was statistically not significant (P = 0.8396). Four (5.71%) all-cause mortality were reported in biosimilar TNK arm compared to 2 (5.71%) in reference arm (all-cause mortality rate at 30 days' post dosing) and the difference between the two arms was statistically not significant (P = −1.00). Conclusion: Biosimilar TNK demonstrated biosimilar equivalence with the reference product in terms of the efficacy and safety analysis in this Phase III study and may be considered as a suitable alternative to reference TNK in patients with STEMI.

A Comparison Study of Efficacy and Safety of a Biosimilar Form of Intramuscular Βeta-interferon I-a Versus the Reference Product: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial in Iran.

We compared the efficacy and safety of a biosimilar form of beta-interferon-1a (Actovex) versus the reference product in the treatment of relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). In a double blind, randomized phase 3 clinical trial, we evaluated 138 patients with RRMS that were allocated to receive the biosimilar medication and the reference treatment (30 μg intramuscular, weekly for one year). We investigated changes in EDSS, relapse rate and MRI changes within one year. In sixty-nine patients who were allocated to each arm and analyzed mean age and its standard deviation was 32.4 ± 8.8 and 31.5 ± 8 for the biosimilar medication and the reference arm respectively. One-year follow-up revealed a mean difference of 0.084 in EDSS (95% CI: 0.069-0.237) between the two groups in favor of the biosimilar medication. This value did not exceed the predefined non-inferiority margin of 0.1. There were no statistically significant differences in relapse rate and systemic and local adverse events of the two groups. The results show that the biosimilar interferon 1-a is non-inferior to the reference product in terms of efficacy while it demonstrates comparable safety. In conclusion the biosimilar interferon 1-a can be considered as an effective and safe alternative to the reference product due to lower cost and more availability.

Phase III, multicentre, double-blind, randomised, parallel-group study to evaluate the similarities between LBEC0101 and etanercept reference product in terms of efficacy and safety in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis inadequately responding to methotrexate

ObjectiveTo evaluate the similarities between LBEC0101 (etanercept biosimilar) and the etanercept reference product (ETN-RP) in terms of efficacy and safety, including immunogenicity, in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite methotrexate...

Bioequivalence of generic alendronate sodium tablets (70 mg) to Fosamax<sup>®</sup> tablets (70 mg) in fasting, healthy volunteers: a randomized, open-label, three-way, reference-replicated crossover study

PurposeThe aim of this study was to evaluate the bioequivalence of a generic product 70 mg alendronate sodium tablets with the reference product Fosamax® 70 mg tablet.Materials and methodsA single-center, open-label, randomized, three-period, three-sequence, reference-replicated crossover study was performed in 36 healthy Chinese male volunteers under fasting conditions. In each study period, the volunteers received a single oral dose of the generic or reference product (70 mg). Blood samples were collected at pre-dose and up to 8 h after administration. The bioequivalence of the generic product to the reference product was assessed using the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) reference-scaled average bioequivalence (RSABE) methods.ResultsThe average maximum concentrations (Cmax) of alendronic acid were 64.78±43.76, 56.62±31.95, and 60.15±37.12 ng/mL after the single dose of the generic product and the first and second doses of the reference product, respectively. The areas under the plasma concentration–time curves from time 0 to the last timepoint (AUC0–t) were 150.36±82.90, 148.15±85.97, and 167.11±110.87 h⋅ng/mL, respectively. Reference scaling was used because the within-subject standard deviations of the reference product (sWR) for Cmax and AUC0–t were all higher than the cutoff value of 0.294. The 95% upper confidence bounds were −0.16 and −0.17 for Cmax and AUC0–t, respectively, and the point estimates for the generic/reference product ratio were 1.08 and 1.00, which satisfied the RSABE acceptance criteria of the FDA. The 90% CIs for Cmax and AUC0–t were 90.35%–129.04% and 85.31%–117.15%, respectively, which were within the limits of the EMA for the bioequivalence of 69.84%–143.19% and 80.00%–125.00%.ConclusionThe generic product was bioequivalent to the reference product in terms of the rate and extent of alendronate absorption after a single 70 mg oral dose under fasting conditions.

CT-P13: design, development, and place in therapy.

The introduction of biological agents has revolutionized the management of many life-threatening and debilitating immune-mediated diseases. Because of the high cost of biological drugs and their patent expiration, the market has opened to biosimilar agents, copy versions of the originators, which can lead to reduced health care expenditure and increase treatment access worldwide. CT-P13 is the first biosimilar of infliximab (IFX) and has been approved for the same indications as its originator drug. It obtained regulatory approval by the European Medicines Agency in September 2013 and by the US Food and Drug Administration in April 2016. The Phase I and Phase III clinical trials conducted in ankylosing spondylitis and rheumatoid arthritis have demonstrated pharmacokinetic and efficacy equivalence with comparable safety and immunogenicity to IFX. For these reasons, the use of CT-P13 has been extrapolated also to inflammatory bowel disease. There have been some initial concerns regarding the use of CT-P13 in inflammatory bowel disease patients, because of the lack of randomized controlled trials. However, emerging real-world data have further confirmed the comparability between CT-P13 and its reference product in terms of efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity, in patients naïve to the anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha agents and after switching from IFX, and will be summarized in this review.

Clinical development of CT-P10 and other biosimilar cancer therapeutics.

Biosimilars are highly similar versions of approved biologic drugs that may confer equivalent efficacy at a reduced cost. Patents for several biological cancer therapeutics are past or approaching expiry, presenting an opportunity to increase affordability and global accessibility of key drugs through the development of biosimilars. To receive approval, a biosimilar must show no clinically meaningful differences from the reference product in terms of efficacy or safety. The first monoclonal antibody biosimilar cancer therapeutic to gain approval was CT-P10, a biosimilar of rituximab. Here, we review the oncology clinical development program for CT-P10, providing insights into the rationale for, and design of, CT-P10 clinical trials in patients with cancer. Trials of biosimilar cancer therapeutics in development are also discussed.

Biosimilar Monoclonal Antibodies for Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Current Comfort and Future Prospects.

Biosimilars are biologic medicines that enter the market after a patent for an original reference product expires. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) developed a stringent legislation process for biosimilar monoclonal antibodies, whereby similarity to the reference medicinal product in terms of quality characteristics, biological activity, clinical safety and efficacy must be demonstrated. Biosimilar infliximab CT-P13 was the first biosimilar monoclonal antibody to receive EMA marketing authorization, and further biosimilar molecules are being developed. The phase I and III clinical trials were conducted in ankylosing spondylitis and rheumatoid arthritis, and the use of CT-P13 in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) was extrapolated on the results of these trials. Medical professionals were initially concerned about the reversed engineering process, the novel legal framework and the lack of clinical data in IBD. Emerging real-world data have confirmed the similarities between CT-P13 and the reference product in terms of efficacy, safety and immunogenicity in IBD. The cost reduction represented by biosimilars promotes industry competition and improves treatment access with sustained quality of care. This article reviews the existing and emerging clinical data for CT-P13 and a future perspective on biosimilar use in IBD.

Biosimilars: Here and Now.

Congress passed the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCI Act) as part of the Affordable Care Act on March 23, 2010. The BPCI Act authorized an approval pathway for biosimilar and interchangeable products. It defines biosimilarity to mean "that the biological product is highly similar to the reference product notwithstanding minor differences in clinically inactive components" and that "there are no clinically meaningful differences between the biological product and the reference product in terms of safety, purity, and potency of the product." The biosimilar pathway has the potential to facilitate access to biologic products through increased competition, in the same manner as biosimilars have done for almost 10 years in Europe. The goal of a biosimilar program is not to independently establish safety and effectiveness for each condition of use. Rather, the goal is to demonstrate biosimilarity through an extensive analytical characterization and a targeted clinical program designed to assess for clinically meaningful differences, if they exist. The regulatory approaches in both the United States and Europe involve a totality-of-the-evidence approach to demonstrate biosimilarity. Importantly, the biosimilar pathway allows for extrapolation of data across indications so that a sponsor, with adequate scientific justification, need not conduct clinical studies in each intended condition of use. Without extrapolation, development may not be feasible for many products, and patients and resources could be diverted from clinical studies of newer agents for cancer.

Development of biosimilars.

To provide an overview of the underlying scientific principles and standards for developing a biosimilar product. An Internet-based literature search through June 2015 was performed for information related to biosimilar manufacturing and development, including a review of regulatory guidelines and requirements. Biologics, both biosimilars and their corresponding reference products, are complex molecules produced by biotechnology in living systems. The development of biologics involves multiple levels of intricate, highly controlled manufacturing processes, combined with pre-clinical structural, functional, and biological assessments, as well as clinical efficacy and safety, including immunogenicity, analyses. In addition, to ensure a high degree of similarity, a biosimilar must undergo a comparability exercise at every step of its development, as outlined by regulatory agencies, to demonstrate that potential differences from the reference product are not clinically meaningful with regard to quality, safety, and efficacy [European Medicines Agency (EMA)] or safety, purity, and potency [US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)]. At the foundation of the biosimilar development process lays the establishment of a high degree of structural similarity with its reference product. State-of-the-art technologies must be employed to demonstrate a high degree of structural and functional similarity. Finally, clinical pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic as well as clinical efficacy and safety similarity must be confirmed between biosimilar and originator. Regulators, including the FDA and the EMA consider the totality of the evidence from this comprehensive step-wise comparative similarity exercise in its determination of biosimilarity for licensing. The rigorous and highly regulated processes required to develop a biosimilar have been designed as such to establish a high degree of biosimilarity with a reference product in terms of the structural, functional, biological, and clinical attributes.