Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Filter by Categories
15th National Conference of the IAOMFP, Chennai, 2006
Abstract
Abstracts from current literature
Acne in India: Guidelines for management - IAA Consensus Document
Addendum
Announcement
Art & Psychiatry
Article
Articles
Association Activities
Association Notes
Award Article
Book Review
Brief Report
Case Analysis
Case Letter
Case Letters
Case Notes
Case Report
Case Reports
Clinical and Laboratory Investigations
Clinical Article
Clinical Studies
Clinical Study
Commentary
Conference Oration
Conference Summary
Continuing Medical Education
Correspondence
Corrigendum
Cosmetic Dermatology
Cosmetology
Current Best Evidence
Current Issue
Current View
Derma Quest
Dermato Surgery
Dermatopathology
Dermatosurgery Specials
Dispensing Pearl
Do you know?
Drug Dialogues
e-IJDVL
Editor Speaks
Editorial
Editorial Remarks
Editorial Report
Editorial Report - 2007
Editorial report for 2004-2005
Errata
Erratum
Focus
Fourth All India Conference Programme
From Our Book Shelf
From the Desk of Chief Editor
General
Get Set for Net
Get set for the net
Guest Article
Guest Editorial
History
How I Manage?
IADVL Announcement
IADVL Announcements
IJDVL Awards
IJDVL AWARDS 2015
IJDVL Awards 2018
IJDVL Awards 2019
IJDVL Awards 2020
IJDVL International Awards 2018
Images in Clinical Practice
In Memorium
Inaugural Address
Index
Knowledge From World Contemporaries
Leprosy Section
Letter in Response to Previous Publication
Letter to Editor
Letter to the Editor
Letter to the Editor - Case Letter
Letter to the Editor - Letter in Response to Published Article
LETTER TO THE EDITOR - LETTERS IN RESPONSE TO PUBLISHED ARTICLES
Letter to the Editor - Observation Letter
Letter to the Editor - Study Letter
Letter to the Editor - Therapy Letter
Letter to the Editor: Articles in Response to Previously Published Articles
Letters in Response to Previous Publication
Letters to the Editor
Letters to the Editor - Letter in Response to Previously Published Articles
Letters to the Editor: Case Letters
Letters to the Editor: Letters in Response to Previously Published Articles
Medicolegal Window
Messages
Miscellaneous Letter
Musings
Net Case
Net case report
Net Image
Net Letter
Net Quiz
Net Study
New Preparations
News
News & Views
Obituary
Observation Letter
Observation Letters
Oration
Original Article
ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTION
Original Contributions
Pattern of Skin Diseases
Pearls
Pediatric Dermatology
Pediatric Rounds
Perspective
Presedential Address
Presidential Address
Presidents Remarks
Quiz
Recommendations
Regret
Report
Report of chief editor
Report of Hon : Treasurer IADVL
Report of Hon. General Secretary IADVL
Research Methdology
Research Methodology
Resident page
Resident's Page
Resident’s Page
Residents' Corner
Residents' Corner
Residents' Page
Retraction
Review
Review Article
Review Articles
Revision Corner
Self Assessment Programme
SEMINAR
Seminar: Chronic Arsenicosis in India
Seminar: HIV Infection
Short Communication
Short Communications
Short Report
Special Article
Specialty Interface
Studies
Study Letter
Supplement-Photoprotection
Supplement-Psoriasis
Symposium - Contact Dermatitis
Symposium - Lasers
Symposium - Pediatric Dermatoses
Symposium - Psoriasis
Symposium - Vesicobullous Disorders
SYMPOSIUM - VITILIGO
Symposium Aesthetic Surgery
Symposium Dermatopathology
Symposium-Hair Disorders
Symposium-Nails Part I
Symposium-Nails-Part II
Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses
Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis
Tables
Technology
Therapeutic Guidelines
Therapeutic Guidelines - IADVL
Therapeutics
Therapy
Therapy Letter
View Point
Viewpoint
What’s new in Dermatology
View/Download PDF

Translate this page into:

LETTER TO THE EDITOR - LETTERS IN RESPONSE TO PUBLISHED ARTICLES
2016:82:6;683-684
doi: 10.4103/0378-6323.191537
PMID: 27716722

Biologics or biosimilars: What is the difference?

Aparajita Ghosh, Anupam Das
 Department of Dermatology, KPC Medical College and Hospital, Kolkata, West Bengal, India

Correspondence Address:
Anupam Das
Prerana,“ 19, Phoolbagan, Kolkata - 700 086, West Bengal
India
How to cite this article:
Ghosh A, Das A. Biologics or biosimilars: What is the difference?. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol 2016;82:683-684
Copyright: (C)2016 Indian Journal of Dermatology, Venereology, and Leprology

Sir,

This is with reference to the study by Sharma et al. describing the efficacy of rituximab in the treatment of pemphigus.[1] We congratulate them on this work that is very relevant for current and future practice of clinical dermatology, yet as of now underrepresented in the Indian literature.

We noticed that the authors have refrained from mentioning the brand of rituximab (biologic/biosimilar) used. We, however, would like to emphasize the importance of such details, especially in studies where the molecule under evaluation is a biologic agent.

The various biologic agents available are classified as “original innovator” or “reference product” (the original patented molecule) and “biosimilars” or “subsequent entry biologics” (drugs developed later which claim similarity to the reference molecule in terms of gross structure and function). These drugs are high molecular weight proteins whose behaviors depend on their complex tertiary structure which may be affected by minor differences in sequences and posttranslational modifications such as glycosylation, hydroxylation and phosphorylation. Hence, the genetically engineered cell lines used for synthesis and other conditions for production and purification assume utmost importance in determining the molecular characteristics of the biological therapeutic agent.

In case of traditional smaller therapeutic molecules which are produced by well-defined chemical reactions, the process for synthesis and purification of a particular drug can be easily duplicated to produce a compound which is exactly similar to the patented/reference molecule. In contrast, biologic agents are produced by biotechnological methods using very specific cell lines under highly controlled conditions, details of which are never fully disclosed by the manufacturers, making these production methods impossible to duplicate.[2] Thus, the resultant product is often not an exact copy of the patented or reference molecule, rendering the term “generics” invalid in this context.

The cell lines used and other methods of characterization and purification differ among the various manufacturers. The result is that different brands of the same biologic drug sometimes have variations in efficacy, safety and immunogenicity. Besides, we can also come across variations in effectiveness even between different batches of the same brand of the biological agent. Whether these biologic and biosimilar molecules can be considered interchangeable is still a matter of controversy and, though there are certain criteria set by regulating authorities, these are often not clearly defined.[3]

The current biologic and biosimilar brands of rituximab available in India differ in their molecular separation properties and adequate comparative studies to determine their relative biological effects do not exist.[4]

Another point which deserves mention is “interchangeability” of biologic agents. According to the United States Food and Drug Administration definition, the generic products should be comparable to the reference product in dosage form, strength, route of administration, quality, performance characteristics and intended use.[5] In India, the “Guidelines on Similar Biologic” prepared by Central Drugs Standard Control Organization and the Department of Biotechnology have laid down the regulatory pathway for a “Similar Biologic” which claims to be similar to the reference biologic. According to the guidelines, “Similar Biologic product is that which is similar in terms of quality, safety and efficacy to an approved Reference Biological product based on comparability.”[6]

Thus, keeping the above things in mind, we feel that for a study of this kind to be clinically relevant and its findings to be reproducible, it is important to mention the brand of biologic or biosimilar used.

Besides, we would like to point out that there appears to be a discordance between the authors' statement “15 patients had already received several cycles of monthly dexamethasone or dexamethasone-cyclophosphamide pulse therapy” and the data shown in Table 1 (in the study by Sharma et al.)[1] where it appears that only nine patients (six for dexamethasone-cyclophosphamide and three for dexamethasone) had actually received pulsed therapy previously. The authors also mention that “10 out of 15 patients who had received intravenous pulsed therapy had complete remission with this initial treatment, but all of them relapsed after a mean duration of 9.5 months.” However, it is not mentioned if long-term maintenance with any immunosuppressive drug had been instituted for these patients after pulsed therapy as was done after treatment with rituximab (oral prednisolone 0.5 mg/kg of bodyweight for 3–4 months and cyclophosphamide and azathioprine for 1 more year). We know that the retrospective nature of the study precludes any direct comparison between the two, but a clarification regarding this would help the readers get an idea of the potential benefit of rituximab, if any, over dexamethasone/dexamethasone-cyclophosphamide pulse therapy for induction of long-term remission in recalcitrant pemphigus.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

References
1.
Sharma VK, Bhari N, Gupta S, Sahni K, Khanna N, Ramam M, et al. Clinical efficacy of rituximab in the treatment of pemphigus: A retrospective study. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol 2016;82:389-94.
[Google Scholar]
2.
Jeske W, Walenga JM, Hoppensteadt D, Fareed J. Update on the safety and bioequivalence of biosimilars – Focus on enoxaparin. Drug Healthc Patient Saf 2013;5:133-41.
[Google Scholar]
3.
Schellekens H, Moors E. Clinical comparability and European biosimilar regulations. Nat Biotechnol 2010;28:28-31.
[Google Scholar]
4.
Qureshi ZP, Magwood JS, Singh S, Bennett CL. Rituximab and biosimilars – Equivalence and reciprocity. Biosimilars 2013;2013:19-25.
[Google Scholar]
5.
Wang J, Chow SC. On the regulatory approval pathway of biosimilar products. Pharmaceuticals (Basel) 2012;5:353-68.
[Google Scholar]
6. [Google Scholar]

Fulltext Views
495

PDF downloads
407
Show Sections