Risk-based Process Development of Biosimilars as Part of the Quality by Design Paradigm

References

1. 1.↵
   IMS. The global use of medicines: Outlook Through 2016 2012.
2. 2.↵
   1. Kudrin A.

   Overview of the biosimilars: Strategic considerations of various issues. Journal of Generic Medicines: The Business Journal for the Generic Medicines Sector 2012, 9 (4), 187-206.

   OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
3. 3.↵
   1. Schneider C. K.,
   2. Vleminckx C.,
   3. Gravanis I.,
   4. Ehmann F.,
   5. Trouvin J. H.,
   6. Weise M.,
   7. Thirstrup S.

   Nat. Biotech. 2012, 30 (12), 1179-1185.

   OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
4. 4.↵
   US Food and Drug Administration. Quality Considerations in Demonstrating Biosimilarity to a Reference Protein Product, 2012.
5. 5.↵
   European Medicines Agency. Guideline on Similar Biological Medicinal Products Containing Biotechnology-derived Proteins as Active Substance: Quality Issues, 2012.
6. 6.↵
   1. Ebbers H. C.,
   2. Crow S. A.,
   3. Vulto A. G.,
   4. Schellekens H.

   Interchangeability, immunogenicity and biosimilars. Nat. Biotech. 2012, 30 (12), 1186–1190.

   OpenUrlPubMed
7. 7.↵
   1. McCamish M.,
   2. Woollett G.

   Worldwide experience with biosimilar development. mAbs 2011, 3 (2), 209–217.

   OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
8. 8.↵
   International Conference on Harmonisation. Pharmaceutical Development Q8(R2), 2009.
9. 9.↵
   1. Rathore A. S.,
   2. Winkle H.

   Quality by design for biopharmaceuticals. Nat. Biotech. 2009, 27 (1), 26–34.

   OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
10. 10.↵
    1. del Val I. J.,
    2. Kontoravdi C.,
    3. Nagy J. M.

    Towards the implementation of quality by design to the production of therapeutic monoclonal antibodies with desired glycosylation patterns. Biotechnol. Prog. 2010, 26 (6), 1505–1527.

    OpenUrlPubMed
11. 11.↵
    1. Mandenius C. F.,
    2. Graumann K.,
    3. Schultz T. W.,
    4. Premstaller A.,
    5. Olsson I. M.,
    6. Petiot E.,
    7. Clemens C.,
    8. Welin M.

    Quality-by-design for biotechnology-related pharmaceuticals. Biotechnol. J. 2009, 4 (5), 600–609.

    OpenUrlPubMed
12. 12.↵
    1. Nosal R.,
    2. Schultz T.

    PQLI definition of criticality. J. Pharm. Innov. 2008, 3 (2), 69-78.

    OpenUrl
13. 13.↵
    1. Eon-Duval A.,
    2. Valax P.,
    3. Solacroup T.,
    4. Broly H.,
    5. Gleixner R.,
    6. Strat C. L.,
    7. Sutter J.

    Application of the quality by design approach to the drug substance manufacturing process of an Fc fusion protein: Towards a global multi-step design space. J. Pharm. Sci. 2012, 101 (10), 3604–3618.

    OpenUrlPubMed
14. 14.↵
    1. Horvath B.,
    2. Mun M.,
    3. Laird M.

    Characterization of a monoclonal antibody cell culture production process using a quality by design approach. Molecular Biotechnol. 2010, 45 (3), 203–206.

    OpenUrl
15. 15.↵
    CMC Biotech Working Group. A-Mab: A Case Study in Bioprocess Development, 2009.
16. 16.↵
    International Conference on Harmonisation. Quality Risk Management Q9, 2005.
17. 17.↵
    1. Robert P. C.,
    2. James K. D.

    Risk-based quality by design (QbD): A Taguchi perspective on the assessment of product quality, and the quantitative linkage of drug product parameters and clinical performance. J. Pharm. Innov. 2008, 3 (1), 23–29.

    OpenUrl
18. 18.↵
    1. Selvarasu S.,
    2. Ho Y. S.,
    3. Chong W. P. K.,
    4. Wong N. S. C.,
    5. Yusufi F. N. K.,
    6. Lee Y. Y.,
    7. Yap M. G. S.,
    8. Lee D. Y.

    Combined in silico modeling and metabolomics analysis to characterize fed-batch CHO cell culture. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2012, 109 (6), 1415–1429.

    OpenUrlPubMed
19. 19.↵
    1. Ahn W. S.,
    2. Antoniewicz M. R.

    Towards dynamic metabolic flux analysis in CHO cell cultures. Biotechnol. J. 2012, 7 (1), 61–74.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
20. 20.↵
    1. Ma N.,
    2. Ellet J.,
    3. Okediadi C.,
    4. Hermes P.,
    5. McCormick E.,
    6. Casnocha S.

    A single nutrient feed supports both chemically defined NS0 and CHO fed-batch processes: Improved productivity and lactate metabolism. Biotechnol. Prog. 2009, 25 (5), 1353–1363.

    OpenUrlPubMed
21. 21.↵
    1. Sagmeister P.,
    2. Wechselberger P.,
    3. Herwig C.

    Information processing: rate-based investigation of cell physiological changes along design space development. PDA J. Pharm. Sci. Technol. 2012, 66 (6), 526–541.

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
22. 22.↵
    1. Rouiller Y.,
    2. Solacroup T.,
    3. Deparis V.,
    4. Barbafieri M.,
    5. Gleixner R.,
    6. Broly H.,
    7. Eon-Duval A.

    Application of quality by design to the characterization of the cell culture process of an Fc-Fusion protein. Eur. J. Pharm. Biopharm. 2012, 81 (2), 426–437.

    OpenUrlPubMed
23. 23.↵
    1. Berkowitz S. A.,
    2. Engen J. R.,
    3. Mazzeo J. R.,
    4. Jones G. B.

    Analytical tools for characterizing biopharmaceuticals and the implications for biosimilars. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2012, 11 (7), 527–540.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
24. 24.↵
    1. Abu-Absi S. F.,
    2. Yang L.,
    3. Thompson P.,
    4. Jiang C.,
    5. Kandula S.,
    6. Schilling B.,
    7. Shukla A. A.

    Defining process design space for monoclonal antibody cell culture. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2010, 106 (6), 894–905.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
25. 25.↵
    1. Yu L.

    Pharmaceutical quality by design: product and process development, understanding, and control. Pharm. Res. 2008, 25 (4), 781–791.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed