Development and Validation of an Intact Mass Spectrometry Method for the Characterisation of Rituximab
Main Article Content
Abstract
Background: Rituximab, a monoclonal antibody (mAb), is of significant medical importance, particularly in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, and chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Since rituximab is produced using recombinant DNA technology, it exhibits structural heterogeneity and various post-translational modifications (PTMs), such as glycosylation variants. These variations can directly impact the product's safety, efficacy, and quality. Therefore, high-accuracy analytical techniques are essential for the quality control of both originator rituximab and the biosimilars available on the market. The use of UHPLC-Q/TOF MS is a standard approach, relying on the direct analysis of the molecule's mass-to-charge ratio (m/z) to confirm the primary structure (based on overall molecular weight) and to characterise PTMs. This method is considered a standard guideline for quality assessment.
Objectives: This study aimed to develop an intact mass spectrometry method for rituximab using UHPLC-Q/TOF in accordance with ICH guidelines Q2(R2), in order to establish a standard method for identity testing and quality control of rituximab at the Institute of Biological Products.
Methods: This experimental research involved the method development through literature review and optimisation of conditions. High-purity samples of the originator drug and biosimilars were prepared by desalting and adjusting the protein concentration to 1.0 mg/ml to enhance ionisation efficiency. Optimal analysis conditions included a reversed-phase column and gradient elution using 0.1% v/v formic acid in water (mobile phase A) and 0.1% v/v formic acid in acetonitrile (mobile phase B). Method validation was performed for key parameters: specificity, precision, and robustness to confirm reliability. Two other monoclonal antibodies, trastuzumab and bevacizumab, were used to test the method's effectiveness in verifying the primary structure and PTM data. The study was conducted from 1 October 2022 to 30 September 2023.
Results: The System Suitability Test using the NIST monoclonal antibody standard showed that the mass accuracy of the major glycoforms was within acceptable limits (±20 ppm), confirming the reliability of the high-accuracy instrument. Validation results demonstrated: (1) specificity: analysis of the blank did not show any signal corresponding to rituximab's major glycoforms. The major glycoforms of the biosimilar were consistent with the originator, with an overall molecular weight of 147,243 kDa and a deviation from the target mass of only 3 Da, which is significantly less than the specified limit of ±10 Da. Furthermore, analysis of other monoclonal antibodies (trastuzumab and bevacizumab) did not show major glycoforms consistent with rituximab, confirming the method's high specificity for rituximab; (2) Precision: testing for intra-day repeatability and inter-analyst/inter-day accuracy showed very low Relative Standard Deviation (%RSD) values. The % RSD for intra-day repeatability was 0.0004, and the % RSD for inter-day/inter-analyst precision was 0, all of which were lower than the specified acceptance criteria.; robustness: testing by changing the sample storage time (stored at -30 °C for 7 days) showed that the mass values of the major glycoforms were not statistically significantly different (p>0.05) when compared to samples analysed immediately, confirming the method's robustness against changes in sample storage conditions.
Conclusions: The developed UHPLC-Q/TOF MS intact mass analysis method for rituximab demonstrates high specificity, precision, and robustness. It is suitable for use as a standard laboratory method for confirming the identity and controlling the quality and efficacy of rituximab before commercial release. This method is also a crucial tool for assessing the structural similarity of the primary structure between biosimilars and the originator drug. However, to enhance the completeness of the analysis, future considerations should include the use of deglycosylase enzyme to remove sugar moieties, which would simplify the analysis and provide aglycosylated mass data. Comparative studies with analytical columns from other manufacturers should also be added to increase operational options and mitigate the risk of equipment shortage.
Article Details

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
References
1.Kwon O, Joung J, Park Y, Kim CW, Hong SH. Considerations of critical quality attributes in the analytical comparability assessment of biosimilar products. Biologicals. 2017;48:101-8. doi: 10.1016/j.biologicals.2017.04.005
2.Lee KH, Lee J, Bae JS, Kim YJ, Kang HA, Kim SH, et al. Analytical similarity assessment of rituximab biosimilar CT-P10 to reference medicinal product. MAbs. 2018;10(3):380-96. doi: 10.1080/19420862.2018.1433976.
3.Cerutti ML, Pesce A, Bès C, Seigelchifer M. Physicochemical and biological characterization of RTXM83, a new rituximab biosimilar. BioDrugs. 2019;33:307-19. doi: 10.1007/s40259-019-00349-2.
4.Gürcan HM, Keskin DB, Stern JN, Nitzberg MA, Shekhani H, Ahmed AR. A review of the current use of rituximab in autoimmune diseases. Int Immunopharmacol. 2009;9(1):10-25. doi: 10.1016/j.intimp.2008.10.004.
5.Maloney DG. Anti-CD20 antibody therapy for B-cell lymphomas. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(21):2008-16. doi: 10.1056/NEJMct1114348.
6.Montacir O, Montacir H, Eravci M, Springer A, Hinderlich S, Saadati A, et al. Comparability study of Rituximab originator and follow-on biopharmaceutical. J Pharm Biomed Anal. 2017;140:239-51. doi: 10.1016/j.jpba.2017.03.029.
7.Xu Y, Xie L, Zhang E, Gao W, Wang L, Cao Y, et al. Physicochemical and functional assessments demonstrating analytical similarity between rituximab biosimilar HLX01 and the MabThera®. MAbs. 2019;11(3):606-20. doi: 10.1080/19420862.2019.1578147.
8.Cornes P. The economic pressures for biosimilar drug use in cancer medicine. Target Oncol. 2012;7:57-67. doi: 10.1007/s11523-011-0196-3
9.สำนักงานพัฒนาวิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยีแห่งชาติ. การพัฒนาศักยภาพในการผลิตสารชีวภัณฑ์มูลค่าสูงในประเทศไทยและประเทศภูมิภาคอาเซียน [อินเทอร์เน็ต]. 2568 [เข้าถึงเมื่อ 26 ก.ย. 2568]. เข้าถึงได้จาก: https://www.nstda.or.th/nac/2021/2021/03/18/vaccine02-biopharmaceuticals/index.html.
10.Storz U. Rituximab: how approval history is reflected by a corresponding patent filing strategy. MAbs. 2014;6(4):820-37. doi: 10.4161/mabs.29105.
11.Beck A, Wagner-Rousset E, Ayoub D, Van Dorsselaer A, Sanglier-Cianférani S. Characterization of therapeutic antibodies and related products. Anal Chem. 2013;85(2):715-36. doi: 10.1021/ac3032355.
12.Wang H, Wu L, Wang C, Xu J, Yin H, Guo H, et al. Biosimilar or not: physicochemical and biological characterization of MabThera and its two biosimilar candidates. ACS Pharmacol Transl Sci. 2021;4(2):790-801. doi: 10.1021/acsptsci.0c00225
13.The United States Pharmacopeia. National formulary. <736> Mass spectrometry. Rockville (MD): United States Pharmacopeial Convention. [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2025 September 26]. Available from: https://online.uspnf.com/uspnf/document/1_GUID-1121F1D0-AFE7-4506-94CF-9112714BE4EB_2_en-US?source=Search%20Results&highlight=mass%20736
14.Hebbi V, Chattopadhyay S, Rathore AS. High performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) based direct and simultaneous estimation of excipients in biopharmaceutical products. J Chromatogr B Analyt Technol Biomed Life Sci. 2019;1117:118-26. doi: 10.1016/j.jchromb.2019.04.022
15.Visser J, Feuerstein I, Stangler T, Schmiederer T, Fritsch C, Schiestl M. Physicochemical and functional comparability between the proposed biosimilar rituximab GP2013 and originator rituximab. BioDrugs. 2013;27:495-507. doi: 10.1007/s40259-013-0036-3
16.Perdomo-Abúndez FC, Vallejo-Castillo L, Vázquez-Leyva S, López-Morales CA, Velasco-Velázquez M, Pavón L, et al. Development and validation of a mass spectrometric method to determine the identity of rituximab based on its microheterogeneity profile. J Chromatogr B. 2020;1139:121885. doi: 10.1016/j.jchromb.2019.121885
17.Formolo T, Ly M, Levy M, Kilpatrick L, Lute S, Phinney K, Marzilli L, Brorson K, Boyne M, Davis D and Schiel J. Determination of the NISTmAb primary structure. In: State-of-the-art and emerging technologies for therapeutic monoclonal antibody characterization volume 2. Biopharmaceutical characterization: the NISTmAb case study. American Chemical Society; 2015. p. 1–62. doi:10.1021/bk-2015-1201.ch001
18.Precise Characterization of Intact Monoclonal Antibodies by the Agilent 6545XT AdvanceBio LC/Q-TOF. Agilent application note. [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2025 Sep 26]. Available from: https://www.agilent.com/cs/library/applications/5991-7813EN.pdf
19.Donnelly DP, Rawlins CM, DeHart CJ, Fornelli L, Schachner LF, Lin Z, Lippens JL, Aluri KC, Sarin R, Chen B and Lantz C. Best practices and benchmarks for intact protein analysis for top-down mass spectrometry. Nat Methods. 2019;16(7):587–94. doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0457-0
20.International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH). ICH Q2(R2): Validation of analytical procedures [Internet]. 2025 [cited 2025 Sept 15]. Available from: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/scientific-guideline/ich-q2r2-guideline-validation-analytical-procedures-step-5-revision-1_en.pdf
21.Gomes RA, Almeida C, Correia C, Guerreiro A, Simplício AL, Abreu IA, Alves PG. Exploring the analytical power of the QTOF MS platform to assess monoclonal antibodies quality attributes. PLoS One. 2019;14(7):e0219156. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0219156