Literature DB >> 16850392

Biophysical comparability of the same protein from different manufacturers: a case study using Epoetin alfa from Epogen and Eprex.

Songpon Deechongkit1, Kenneth H Aoki, Sungae S Park, Bruce A Kerwin.   

Abstract

This study focuses on the development and application of biophysical methodology to characterize conformations of Epogen and Eprex, the injectable formulations of recombinant human Epoetin alfa produced by different manufacturers and commonly used for the treatment of renal anemia. In these studies Eprex, from prefilled syringes, and Epogen bulk product formulated in a buffer similar to the Eprex formulation, were purified by anion-exchange chromatography. Analytical ultracentrifugation studies of the purified main peak from each sample demonstrated that Epogen contains a single component with an s value of 2.51 while Eprex contains a single component with the same molecular weight but with an s value of 2.44 suggesting a slight difference in hydrodynamic structure. The degree of alpha-helicity was compared by far-UV circular dichroism and shown to contain slight differences. Intrinsic tryptophan fluorescence and near-UV circular dichroism were assessed and demonstrated additional differences between the proteins. Finally, the global stability of the proteins was monitored using thermal unfolding monitored by far-UV circular dichroism. The Epoetin alfa of Epogen demonstrated complete reversibility while the Epoetin alfa purified from Eprex demonstrated only 80%-85% thermal reversibility when heated to 100 degrees C. Together the data indicate that the proteins are not structurally identical. (c) 2006 Wiley-Liss, Inc. and the American Pharmacists Association.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16850392     DOI: 10.1002/jps.20649

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Pharm Sci        ISSN: 0022-3549            Impact factor:   3.534


  8 in total

1.  The utility of hydrogen/deuterium exchange mass spectrometry in biopharmaceutical comparability studies.

Authors:  Damian Houde; Steven A Berkowitz; John R Engen
Journal:  J Pharm Sci       Date:  2010-12-29       Impact factor: 3.534

2.  Biosimilars 2.0: guiding principles for a global "patients first" standard.

Authors:  Joseph Miletich; Geoffrey Eich; Gustavo Grampp; Barbara Mounho
Journal:  MAbs       Date:  2011-05-01       Impact factor: 5.857

Review 3.  Analytical tools for characterizing biopharmaceuticals and the implications for biosimilars.

Authors:  Steven A Berkowitz; John R Engen; Jeffrey R Mazzeo; Graham B Jones
Journal:  Nat Rev Drug Discov       Date:  2012-06-29       Impact factor: 84.694

4.  Glutaraldehyde erythropoietin protects kidney in ischaemia/reperfusion injury without increasing red blood cell production.

Authors:  S Chattong; J Tanamai; P Kiatsomchai; M Nakatsu; A Sereemaspun; N Pimpha; K Praditpornsilpa; R Rojanathanes; A Sethpakadee; K Tungsanga; S Eiam-Ong; K Manotham
Journal:  Br J Pharmacol       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 8.739

5.  Comparison of the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles of one US-marketed and two European-marketed epoetin alfas: a randomized prospective study.

Authors:  Michael Lissy; Marité Ode; Karsten Roth
Journal:  Drugs R D       Date:  2011

Review 6.  Analytical Similarity Assessment of Biosimilars: Global Regulatory Landscape, Recent Studies and Major Advancements in Orthogonal Platforms.

Authors:  Neh Nupur; Srishti Joshi; Davy Gulliarme; Anurag S Rathore
Journal:  Front Bioeng Biotechnol       Date:  2022-02-09

7.  Update on the safety and bioequivalence of biosimilars - focus on enoxaparin.

Authors:  Walter Jeske; Jeanine M Walenga; Debra Hoppensteadt; Jawed Fareed
Journal:  Drug Healthc Patient Saf       Date:  2013-06-10

8.  Biosimilar therapeutics-what do we need to consider?

Authors:  Huub Schellekens
Journal:  NDT Plus       Date:  2009-01
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.