FDA recommendations for comparability studies to support manufacturing changes. Joslyn Brunelle, PhD Office of Biotechnology Products OPQ/CDER/FDA

Transcription

1 FDA recommendations for comparability studies to support manufacturing changes Joslyn Brunelle, PhD Office of Biotechnology Products OPQ/CDER/FDA

2 The views and opinions expressed here should not be used in place of regulations, published FDA guidance, or discussions with the Agency

3 Common Manufacturing changes throughout development New manufacturing site Bioreactor Scale up New master cell bank New formulation New purification column/resin New equipment (filter, tubing, disposable) Evaluate the risk (high/low)

4 Structure of complex molecules 1 o sequence higher order structure post-translational modifications heterogeneity o Statin MW ~400 Da o Monoclonal Ab MW ~150,000 Da

5 Post-Translational Modifications pyro-e D O D O G D G O D O G D G pyro-e D Pyro-Glu (2) Deamidation (3 X 2) Methionine oxidation (2 X 2) Glycation (2 X 2) High mannose, G0, G1, G2 (5) Sialylation (5) K K C-term Lys (2) (9600) x 6 x 4 x 4 x 5 x 5 x 2 = 9600

6 Critical Quality Attributes for Biotech Products can include: Strength Potency Post-translational modifications Isoelectric point Aggregation Size Sterility Ionic strength Adventitious agents Impurities (e.g., DNA, Host Cell Proteins) Formulation components

7 Critical Process Parameters (CPPs) and Quality Attributes (CQAs) CPPs CQAs DO ph temperature nutrient addition cultivation method glycosylation endogenous retrovirus production higher level protein structure product-related-enzyme production

8 Linking product characteristics to clinical parameters Process Product Structure And Function Impurity Profile Adventitious Agents Quality Safety Efficacy

9 ICH Q5E guidance: Comparability of biotechnological products subject to changes in their manufacturing process Early development (Tox lot, Phase 1 / 2) Phase 3 to BLA Post-approval Comparability protocols Biosimilar products are out of scope for this presentation

10 ICH Q5E The demonstration of comparability does not necessarily mean that the quality attributes of the pre-change and post-change product are identical, but that they are highly similar and that the existing knowledge is sufficiently predictive to ensure that any differences in quality attributes have no adverse impact on safety or efficacy of the drug product.

11 ICH Q5E Demonstration of comparability during development depends on: Stage of development Availability of analytical procedures Extent of product and process knowledge During early phases, comparability testing is generally not as extensive as for an approved product Where process changes are introduced in late stages of development and no additional clinical studies are planned to support the BLA, the comparability exercise should be as comprehensive as for an approved product

12 ICH Q5E If a manufacturer can provide assurance of comparability through analytical studies alone, nonclinical or clinical studies with the post-change product are not warranted. However, where the relationship between specific quality attributes and safety and efficacy has not been established, and differences between quality attributes of the pre- and post-change product are observed, it might be appropriate to include a combination of quality, nonclinical, and/or clinical studies in the comparability exercise.

13 Development Decision Product Lifecycle * Special considerations for breakthrough and orphan designations IND EOP2 BLA R&D IND Enabling Phase I/II (safety) Phase III (efficacy) IV Post Marketing -Tox Lots -Limited structural characterization -Preliminary biological characterization -Limited viral clearance -Limited stability In depth characterization & Assay development Additional studies to support viral clearance Collect stability data Manufacturing scale up Continue characterization & assay development. Validated Lot release assay development Specification setting Collect stability data Post marketing commitments (PMC) Annual product review Post-marketing surveillance (adverse events) Annual report Manufacturing changes Stability

14 Comparability for IND First in human study Tox lot should be comparable to Phase 1 clinical material Specify any differences between the manufacturing process for tox lot and clinical lot At least 1 tox lot and 1 clinical lot Emphasis is on safety Product and process related impurities Place IND on hold if tox lot and clinical material are not comparable

15 Case study #1 Tox lot was manufactured using a non-clonal cell line Clinical lot was manufactured using a clonal cell line This approach may require more rigorous comparability data, depending on: The product The mechanism of action Differences in the process between the tox and clinical lots Discuss with Agency

16 Case study # 2 Monoclonal antibody Change in sequence 2 amino acids in heavy chain Product was comparable according to analytical testing End of Phase 1 The starting dose in the next clinical trial was lowered in order to evaluate safety in a few patients

17 Case Study # 3 Manufacturing changes during Phase 1 / 2 may require additional viral clearance studies if small scale model does not adequately represent the new process Quality attributes (purity & potency) may be comparable, but Partial hold, cannot initiate studies with postchange lots until updated viral clearance study (safety)

18 Case Study # 4 IgG1 monoclonal antibody Oncology indication (multiple trials in Phase 1 / 2) Pre- and post-change drug substance and drug product are not comparable particularly with respect to the carbohydrate profile batches have approximately 12% higher G0, 10% lower G1 and 1% lower G2 CDC activity declined in forced degradation studies It is not understood why CDC activity in post-change lots is sensitive to thermal stress, but remains unaltered in pre-change lots Additional non-clinical studies were performed to compare toxicity, PK, and efficacy Clinical study will be performed in myeloma patients to assess the safety and PK; the outcome of the clinical study will inform the future direction of clinical development

19 Comparability for IND End of Phase 2 (EOP2) Encourage sponsors to implement manufacturing changes prior to the initiation of pivotal clinical studies Clinical experience (safety and efficacy) is linked to product used in pivotal studies Manufacturing changes after pivotal studies are higher risk

20 Regulatory filing IND quality information amendment Cover letter should adequately summarize the extent of manufacturing changes Clearly specify the date when post-change product will be introduced into clinical studies Type C meeting to discuss comparability exercise expectations for your product depending on the type of process change and stage of development Minor changes may be annual reportable

21 Expectations depend on: Phase of development Extent of changes Number and availability of pre-change clinical lots Characterization of pre-change lots General product knowledge, Target product profile Analytical methods

22 Lower probability to adversely impact safety & efficacy Improvements in impurity and stability profile are encouraged Higher probability to adversely impact safety & efficacy New impurity Glycosylation changes Sialic acid content could impact PK (half-life) Significant increase or decrease in potency could impact dosing and safety (i.e. narrow therapeutic index drugs)

23 Analytical comparability Release testing (purity & potency) Extended characterization * Stability studies: real-time, accelerated/ stressed conditions * If analytical comparability cannot be shown, then nonclinical and/or clinical studies may be needed (*) may be very limited if very early in development

24 Common Analytical Methods for Biotechnology Products Quality Attribute Tests Identity Purity (Impurities) Potency Strength (Protein concentration) Safety Western blot, ELISA, N-terminal sequencing, Peptide map, CE SDS-PAGE, IEF, IEX, CE, SEC-HPLC, RP-HPLC Bioassay (cell based or animal based), Binding assay Absorbance at 280 nm, Bradford, HPLC, ELISA Bioburden, Endotoxin, Appearance, DNA, Host Cell Protein, Sterility, Pyrogenicity

25 Extended Characterization Primary structure Amino acid composition N-terminal sequence analysis C-terminal variants analysis Peptide mapping Higher order structure Disulfide linkage analysis Circular Dichroism spectroscopy Biophysical characterization UV spectral profile Differential scanning calorimetry Charge profile Isoelectric focusing Glycosylation Site specific glycan composition and occupancy Glycan mapping by HPAE-PAD Glycan structure determination by MS/MS fragmentation analysis Glycan linkage analysis Monosaccharide composition Sialic acid Molecular weight distribution MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry SDS-PAGE Size exclusion HPLC Biological activity Specific activity and enzyme kinetics Cellular Uptake & internalization Cell based bioassay Binding assay

26 Analytical comparability One lot pre-change & one lot post-change may be sufficient at early stage of development One lot is not sufficient at later stages of development, such as when manufacturing changes are made: middle of Phase 3 after pivotal clinical study and prior to BLA post-approval changes Three pre-change lots & three post-change lots is typical

27 Analytical comparability Do I need to set acceptance criteria for my comparability exercise? If you use meets release specifications as criteria, are the specifications too wide? Statistical methods can be included, but are not necessary Most reviewers prefer to review your actual data!

28 Analytical comparability comparable to reference standard is not well defined, so primary data (gels & chromatograms) should be provided Side-by-side testing not always required, but may be preferable if significant assay variability is observed Prior to method validation Extended characterization methods

29 Changes to analytical methods If new analytical methods are implemented during development, the older methods may be included in the comparability exercise Retain samples can be re-tested when new and improved methods are implemented Retain samples will tell you whether a new impurity identified by a new method is entirely new or whether it was present all along in the clinical material (but not detectable by the old method)

30 When your manufacturing experience contains multiple lots Compare comparability data to historical lot release, include trend charts Within specification, but out of trend, is there a concern? Provide justification for how lots were chosen for the comparability exercise Avoid cherry picking (i.e. using certain prechange lots that are more comparable to your post-change lots)

31 Stability testing Real time temperature Limited data at the time of submission Accelerated/Stressed stability More likely to discover changes when the products are challenged Shorter time course Choice of stressed conditions defined during forced degradation/characterization studies Include conditions that result in incremental changes over time Include stability indicating assays

32 Regulatory filing post-approval 21 CFR An applicant must inform the FDA about each change in the product, process, quality controls, equipment, facilities, responsible personnel, or labeling established in the approved license application Prior Approval Supplement (PAS): changes requiring supplement submission and approval prior to distribution of the product made using the change Major changes have substantial potential to have an adverse effect on a product s identity, strength, quality, purity, or potency as they may relate to its safety or effectiveness Manufacturing site, scale, specifications, formulations

33 Regulatory filings CBE-0/CBE-30: changes requiring supplement submission at least 30 days prior to distribution of the product made using the change Moderate potential to have adverse effect Like-for-like change of equipment Add alternate QC testing site Annual report Minimal potential to have adverse effect Simple change in floor plan

34 PAS - comparability study Include at least three drug substance lots Process A commercial scale and three lots Process B commercial scale Release and extended characterization testing Real-time, accelerated, and stressed stability data Release testing and 3 months real time and accelerated stability data on at least one lot of drug product All process validation data for Process B 10,000L scale Trending of all historical data (both process A and B clearly labeled) including release, characterization, stability data, and an evaluation of process comparability for upstream and downstream process parameters Provide evidence that the assay you currently have in place to measure host cell proteins provides a suitable measure of HCP under the new process A pre-approval inspection for the Process B manufacturer may also be required

35 Case study # 5 Switching from vial to pre-filled syringe late in development is not just a simple comparability exercise, additional clinical experience is needed, including: Human factor studies Stability data to establish expiry Extractable/leachable studies for licensure Additional clinical studies also necessary for a switch from IV to SC administration

36 Animal studies PK/PD/biodistribution Toxicity Tissue cross reactivity study Clinical studies PK/PD Safety and efficacy

37 Case study # 6 Pivotal clinical studies were complete Manufacturing changes: Upstream: Serum removed from media, change from roller bottle to bioreactor Downstream: New purification site & scheme Analytical comparability cannot be demonstrated: Inadequate release testing = no historical data for prechange lots Reference standards were changed multiple times and linkage to original clinical material was lost Lack of retain samples

38 Case study # 6 cont. Clinical comparability: differences observed in PK study Bioequivalence study in healthy volunteers did not met criteria (80-120%) Post-change product has 30% lower exposure PD marker has high subject variability Additional clinical trial (efficacy) needed for approval

39 Comparability protocols Typically used in Post-approval setting Extensive knowledge of process and product Protocol approved for a specific change Protocol submitted to Agency as PAS Acceptance criteria tighter than release Stability (real time, accelerated/stressed) Reduced reporting category (CBE-30)

40 Acknowledgements Michele Dougherty Gibbes Johnson Sarah Kennett Susan Kirshner Juhong Liu Marjie Shapiro Sean Fitzsimmons Chana Fuchs Cristina Ausin

41