Immunogenicity in Biosimilars: Why Immune Responses May Differ from Reference Biologics

Published
Author
Immunogenicity in Biosimilars: Why Immune Responses May Differ from Reference Biologics

When you hear the word biosimilar, you might think it’s just like a generic drug-cheaper, same active ingredient, same effect. But that’s not quite right. Unlike generics, which are exact chemical copies of small-molecule drugs, biosimilars are made from living cells. They’re designed to be highly similar to a reference biologic-like Humira or Enbrel-but not identical. And that tiny difference? It can matter when your body reacts to the drug.

Why Your Body Might React Differently

Your immune system isn’t fooled by small changes. Even a slight shift in how a protein is folded, or a tiny variation in sugar molecules attached to it, can make your body see the drug as something foreign. This triggers what’s called immunogenicity: your immune system produces anti-drug antibodies (ADAs) to fight it off.

These antibodies don’t always cause problems. Sometimes they’re harmless. But in other cases, they can block the drug from working, or worse-trigger allergic reactions. One famous example is cetuximab, where a sugar molecule called galactose-α-1,3-galactose in the drug caused life-threatening anaphylaxis in some patients. That’s not common, but it shows how sensitive the immune system can be.

The key point? Biosimilars aren’t copies in the way a photocopy is a copy. They’re more like a hand-painted replica of a painting. Same image, same brushstrokes-but maybe the paint has a slightly different texture. That difference can be enough for your immune system to notice.

What Makes a Biosimilar More Likely to Trigger an Immune Response?

It’s not just the drug itself. A mix of factors determines whether you’ll develop antibodies. Here’s what really matters:

  • How it’s given: Shots under the skin (subcutaneous) are more likely to cause immunogenicity than IV infusions. Why? The immune system in your skin is more active. Studies show subcutaneous delivery increases risk by 30-50%.
  • How often you take it: If you’re getting the drug every week or every other week, your immune system has more chances to react. Continuous dosing (like monthly infusions) is less likely to trigger a response.
  • How long you’ve been on it: Immune tolerance takes time to break. Most ADAs appear after six months or more of treatment. That’s why short-term trials often miss immunogenicity risks.
  • Your genes: Certain HLA gene variants-like HLA-DRB1*04:01-make you 4.7 times more likely to develop antibodies to some biologics. It’s not something you can test for routinely, but it explains why some people react and others don’t.
  • What else you’re taking: Methotrexate, a common rheumatoid arthritis drug, cuts ADA risk by 65% when used with TNF inhibitors. It’s not just helping your joints-it’s calming your immune system’s overreaction.

Manufacturing Matters More Than You Think

Biosimilars are made in bioreactors using living cells-usually Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells or sometimes human cell lines. These cells don’t produce proteins perfectly every time. Tiny differences in how they add sugar groups (glycosylation) can change how the drug behaves.

For example:

  • Too little sialic acid? The drug might get cleared from your blood faster.
  • Too much galactose? That could trigger immune reactions.
  • Protein aggregates? If more than 5% of the drug clumps together, immunogenicity risk jumps 3.2 times.
  • Host cell proteins? Even 100 parts per million of leftover cell debris can spike ADA rates by 87%.
These aren’t theoretical risks. They’ve been measured in real studies. That’s why regulators require manufacturers to prove their biosimilar matches the reference product down to the molecular level. But even then, slight differences in the manufacturing process-like changing the buffer or the filtration step-can alter the final product.

A patient receiving an injection as glowing antibodies rise from the skin, with a bioreactor glowing softly in the background.

Testing for Antibodies Isn’t Easy

Detecting ADAs sounds simple: just test the blood, right? Not quite. The tests themselves can change the results.

Different labs use different methods. Some use electrochemiluminescence (ECL) assays, which are super sensitive-they can spot antibodies in as little as 0.1% of patients. Others use older ELISA tests, which miss up to 30% of cases. If one study uses ECL and another uses ELISA, you can’t compare their results. That’s why regulatory agencies like the FDA and EMA insist that comparative studies use the exact same assay.

And even when you find antibodies, are they neutralizing? That’s the real question. Neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) block the drug from working. Non-neutralizing ones might not do anything. But testing for NAbs requires cell-based assays-slower, less precise, but more biologically relevant. Some regulators prefer them because they mimic what actually happens in your body.

Real-World Data: Do Biosimilars Really Cause More Reactions?

The data is mixed. And that’s the point.

In a 2021 study of over 1,200 rheumatoid arthritis patients, switching from reference infliximab to its biosimilar CT-P13 showed almost no difference in ADA rates: 12.3% vs. 11.8%. Same effect. Same safety.

But then there’s the NOR-SWITCH trial. Patients switched from originator infliximab to biosimilar. The biosimilar group had slightly higher ADA rates-11.2% vs. 8.5%. Still, no drop in effectiveness. No increase in side effects.

Then came the Danish registry data on adalimumab. The reference drug (Humira) had 18.7% ADA rates. The biosimilar (Amgevita) had 23.4%. Statistically different. But here’s the twist: both groups had the same clinical outcomes. Patients still felt better. Their disease didn’t flare.

And then there are the patient stories. On Reddit, one person said switching to a biosimilar etanercept caused severe injection site reactions they’d never had before. Another said they switched between Humira and its biosimilar six times over three years-zero difference.

The bottom line? For most people, biosimilars work just fine. But for a small subset, the immune system notices the difference-and reacts.

A grand scale balancing a reference biologic and biosimilar, surrounded by scientists and molecular details in luminous light.

What’s Being Done to Fix This?

The field is moving fast. Scientists are now using tools that didn’t exist ten years ago:

  • Mass spectrometry: Can now map sugar structures on proteins with 99.5% accuracy. By 2027, this could make manufacturing so precise that structural differences are nearly eliminated.
  • Glycomics and immunomics: Researchers are combining data on sugar patterns, immune cell responses, and genetic markers to predict who’s at risk before they even get the drug.
  • Formulation tweaks: Some biosimilars now use different stabilizers. For example, one rituximab biosimilar uses polysorbate 80 instead of the originator’s polysorbate 20. Why? Because polysorbate 20 can break down into substances that promote protein clumping-and clumping triggers immune reactions.
The FDA and EMA now require biosimilar makers to prove immunogenicity is no worse than the original. That means head-to-head trials with identical testing methods. It’s not perfect, but it’s the best we’ve got.

Should You Be Worried?

If you’re considering a biosimilar, here’s what you need to know:

  • For most people, the risk of immunogenicity is very low-and no higher than the original drug.
  • Some people will develop antibodies. That doesn’t mean it’s dangerous.
  • If you’ve had a good response to the reference drug, switching to a biosimilar is usually safe.
  • If you’ve had allergic reactions or lost response to the original, talk to your doctor before switching.
  • Don’t assume biosimilars are risk-free. But don’t assume they’re riskier, either.
The goal isn’t to eliminate all immune responses. It’s to make sure those responses don’t hurt you. And so far, the data shows that biosimilars are achieving that.

What’s Next?

Biosimilars are saving billions in healthcare costs. In Europe, over 85% of infliximab prescriptions are now biosimilars. In the U.S., that number is still around 45%. Why the gap? Legal battles, insurance hurdles, and lingering fear.

But fear is fading. As more patients use biosimilars without issues, doctors are becoming more confident. And with better testing tools on the horizon, we’re getting closer to a future where the only difference between a biosimilar and its reference product is the price tag.

The science is clear: immunogenicity differences can happen. But they don’t have to mean worse outcomes. The real question isn’t whether biosimilars are different. It’s whether those differences matter-and for most patients, the answer is no.

Can biosimilars cause more side effects than the original biologic?

In most cases, no. Large clinical trials and real-world studies show that biosimilars have similar safety profiles to their reference products. While minor differences in immune responses can occur, they rarely lead to clinically meaningful increases in side effects. For example, studies on infliximab and adalimumab biosimilars found no significant rise in serious infections, hospitalizations, or allergic reactions compared to the original drugs.

Why aren’t biosimilars called generics?

Because they’re not chemically identical. Generics are simple molecules made by chemical synthesis-they’re exact copies. Biosimilars are complex proteins made by living cells. Even tiny changes in how those cells grow or process the protein can lead to differences in structure, function, or immune response. That’s why regulators require extensive testing to prove similarity, not identity.

Do all biosimilars have the same risk of immunogenicity?

No. Risk varies by drug, manufacturer, and even batch. A biosimilar made with a human cell line might have lower immunogenicity than one made with CHO cells, depending on glycosylation patterns. Formulation differences-like the type of stabilizer used-also play a role. That’s why each biosimilar must be evaluated individually, even if they target the same disease.

How do doctors test for anti-drug antibodies?

Doctors use a tiered testing approach. First, a screening test detects if antibodies are present. If positive, a confirmatory test checks if they’re specific to the drug. Then, a neutralizing antibody test determines if those antibodies block the drug’s function. These tests are usually done in specialized labs using methods like electrochemiluminescence (ECL) or cell-based assays. Routine testing isn’t standard for all patients, but it’s recommended if the drug stops working or if serious side effects appear.

Is it safe to switch from a reference biologic to a biosimilar?

Yes, for most patients. Multiple studies, including the NOR-SWITCH trial and real-world registries in Europe, show that switching doesn’t lead to worse outcomes. The American College of Rheumatology supports switching when appropriate. However, if you’ve had a poor response or allergic reaction to the original drug, your doctor may recommend staying on it. Always discuss the decision with your healthcare provider.

15 Comments

  • Image placeholder

    Taya Rtichsheva

    December 9, 2025 AT 00:01
    So basically biosimilars are like that one cousin who looks like you but always wears mismatched socks and somehow still gets invited to family dinners?
  • Image placeholder

    Larry Lieberman

    December 10, 2025 AT 11:33
    This is wild 🤯 I had no idea sugar molecules could trigger anaphylaxis. Science is both terrifying and beautiful.
  • Image placeholder

    Sabrina Thurn

    December 10, 2025 AT 14:53
    The glycosylation variability is the real kicker. Even with ultra-precise manufacturing, you're dealing with biological noise that’s inherently stochastic. That’s why post-marketing surveillance is non-negotiable - clinical trials are snapshots, not live streams.
  • Image placeholder

    Christian Landry

    December 11, 2025 AT 13:45
    wait so if i switch from humira to amgevita and my knee stops hurting... is that a win or did my body just give up? 😅
  • Image placeholder

    Guylaine Lapointe

    December 13, 2025 AT 06:21
    It’s irresponsible to suggest that immunogenicity differences don’t matter just because clinical outcomes appear similar. Patients aren’t data points. If your immune system is actively attacking a drug you’re paying thousands for, that’s not ‘fine’-it’s a systemic failure of oversight.
  • Image placeholder

    Katie Harrison

    December 14, 2025 AT 19:57
    I appreciate the nuance here, but I’m still uneasy. We’re asking patients to become accidental pharmacologists-tracking antibody levels, understanding glycosylation, interpreting ELISA vs. ECL results. That’s not healthcare; it’s a burden.
  • Image placeholder

    Mona Schmidt

    December 16, 2025 AT 13:11
    For anyone new to this topic: think of biosimilars like handmade pottery. Two mugs might look identical, but if one’s glaze has a micro-crack, it might leak. That doesn’t mean the other is broken-it just means you need to know which one you’re holding.
  • Image placeholder

    Simran Chettiar

    December 17, 2025 AT 09:24
    The fundamental epistemological challenge lies in the ontological indeterminacy of biological identity: when a molecule is synthesized by a living organism, its very essence becomes contingent upon environmental, temporal, and cellular variables that cannot be fully standardized. Thus, the notion of ‘sameness’ in biosimilars is not merely a regulatory fiction-it is a metaphysical paradox.
  • Image placeholder

    Anna Roh

    December 17, 2025 AT 21:24
    Honestly? I don’t care if the sugar is different. My co-pay dropped from $800 to $50. If my body wants to throw a tantrum, I’ll just switch back. Science can figure it out later.
  • Image placeholder

    om guru

    December 18, 2025 AT 19:29
    Respected colleagues, the matter of biosimilar immunogenicity requires rigorous adherence to scientific protocol and transparent reporting. Patient safety remains paramount. We must not allow cost-driven decisions to compromise therapeutic integrity.
  • Image placeholder

    Philippa Barraclough

    December 20, 2025 AT 03:44
    The most concerning aspect isn't the variability in glycosylation-it's that we're still using assays developed in the 1990s to evaluate molecules engineered with AI-optimized cell lines. The technology gap between manufacturing and detection is widening, and regulators are playing catch-up with a slide rule.
  • Image placeholder

    Tim Tinh

    December 21, 2025 AT 04:13
    my aunt switched to a biosimilar and now she’s got a rash every time she injects. she says it’s ‘just the body adjusting’ but i’m not buying it. also she calls it ‘the cheap shot’ 😅
  • Image placeholder

    Asset Finance Komrade

    December 21, 2025 AT 11:59
    You’re all missing the point. Biosimilars are capitalism’s answer to biologics: cheaper, slightly worse, and marketed as ‘equivalent’ because profit margins demand it. The immune system isn’t the problem-it’s the business model.
  • Image placeholder

    iswarya bala

    December 21, 2025 AT 21:34
    this is so cool! i never knew my body could be so picky about medicine 😊 maybe one day we can test before we take it and know for sure!
  • Image placeholder

    Courtney Black

    December 23, 2025 AT 19:35
    The real question isn't whether biosimilars are identical. It's whether we, as a society, are willing to accept the illusion of sameness in exchange for economic efficiency. We optimize for cost, not for complexity. And biology? Biology doesn't care about balance sheets. It only responds to what it recognizes-and sometimes, it recognizes nothing at all.

Write a comment