Rob Wright takes issue with Peter Bach, M.D., and Mark Trusheim’s recommendation that the U.S. would be better served by abandoning continued biosimilar drug development.
Saurabh Kapure, Vice President, Business Development, USA for Jubilant Biosys, recently sat down with Michael Gallatin, Ph.D., president and co-founder of Mavupharma (Mavu), the drug discovery and development company, to discuss some of the latest developments in the industry and at Mavu. In this Q&A, Dr. Gallatin shares his thoughts about Mavupharma, his role at the company, the evolution of biopharma, drug discovery, development, and the road ahead for the industry with Saurabh.
In light of BioApproval's Chris Webster’s recent publication and future presentation at the upcoming DIA Biosimilars conference, I spoke with him to learn more about the "Confirmation of Sufficient Likeness" approach and the scientific evidence that has informed this proposed biosimilar regulatory paradigm shift away from Totality of Evidence.
During our discussion, I learned more about this patient organization and its biosimilar education goals, as well as what type of information could be particularly helpful for the breast cancer patient community at this point in time.
Free collection of articles highlighting some of the dynamics playing out in the hospital setting for biosimilars, as well as how physicians and drugmakers can foster a greater understanding of biosimilar medicines.
Not only are the issues impacting cell and gene therapies relatable on the biosimilar side, I’m hoping this particular strategy can inspire creative thinking as scrutiny into the buy-and-bill landscape continues to intensify.
Because negative news and opinions seem to create greater waves, I thought I would take stock of the positive news that may not have come over your desks or (more realistically) cellphones in the past few weeks. While it’s easy to get bogged down by negative speculation, there’s progress being made and companies and experts fighting daily to keep this industry moving forward, even if it feels glacial.
Achieving “smarter”, more flexible workflows requires a complete understanding of today’s novel solutions and technologies, which, when applied appropriately, can push the boundaries of drug development and offer critical advantages in an increasingly competitive industry.
With a newer toolbox of options to intensify downstream manufacturing operations, it is important to understand what factors should impact your decisions regarding the implementation of these innovative solutions.
Meeting the goals of today’s industry requires a deeper look at how to continuously achieve maximum utilization and reduce waste without sacrificing quality in the race to be first to market.
Breaking down the implementation of continuous manufacturing into the following four steps may provide some much-needed guidance as you prepare your network for the future of biomanufacturing.
Even though the FDA has argued quite passionately against the need for biologics standards, there are several reasons why I hesitate to embrace their arguments that having these standards in place (and requiring they be met) could be harmful to biosimilars.
Though this event encompassed a small cross-section of employers, the discussions and questions asked about biosimilars revealed the topics that need to be considered, reiterated, and regularly reinforced.
Though it’s only natural to expect animated scientific discussion between the FDA and USP which have long been partners-in-science, I found myself caught off-guard by just how firmly the FDA has been putting its foot down and making its thoughts known on the role certain standards — in particular, USP monographs — should (or should not play) in biologics development.
Often, the last thing on the minds of drug development teams working is the human factors engineering (HFE) performance of the drug delivery devices that will ultimately deliver their innovative medications to patients. Yet, such an oversight can cause major delays in delivering these new medications to market.
While we’ve certainly seen progress on the march towards true global development, there’s still a way to go. There were several points I learned recently that stood out about which regulatory inconsistencies still exist between developed nations, as well as how certain aspects of regulatory science can be improved upon in the future.
ISPOR, the professional society for health economics and outcomes research (HEOR), recently held its annual conference, which brought together nearly 4,000 researchers, regulators, payers, drug developers, providers, and other stakeholders from across the healthcare continuum. During one panel session, experts in biosimilar regulatory, legal, and reimbursement discussed the crucial elements needed to foster a robust and sustainable U.S. biosimilars marketplace over the long term.
During our conversation about the FDA’s most recent comparability guidance, I picked one USP expert's brain about the challenges of establishing a biosimilar analytical development program, as well as why certain types of data may be more difficult to come by than others. These challenges are responsible for further complicating the question about which types of data are still necessary, and why.
In this first of what will be a two-part article, USP's Fouad Atouf highlights the challenges presented by the FDA’s newest guidance while remaining optimistic that the large amount of data recommended today will open doors to more efficient development in the (hopefully) near future.
Despite the importance of the process the FDA is outlining in the guidance, I’ve surprisingly heard little chatter — positive or negative — about what the agency is now outlining and what this may mean for biosimilars and the biosimilar regulatory paradigm moving forward. Here are a couple of the biggest takeaways to note.
This whitepaper discusses the importance of understanding how critical process parameters can impact a product’s critical quality attributes, and how a systematic approach with validated SPR assays can help in this respect.
I particularly enjoyed a conversation amongst a panel of physicians at a recent conference, several of whom elaborated upon the value increased use of biosimilars can bring to the table — both for patients and physicians. And though savings and access are main goals, physicians also see another critical benefit of greater biosimilar use.
The debate on drug pricing is raising questions about why U.S. patients pay some of the highest fees in the world to access prescription medicines. Politicians are putting manufacturers of insulins under particular scrutiny.
Reading through the two versions of the guidance, I had a few thoughts about some of these changes, which led me to reflect more broadly on their impact on the biosimilar regulatory and development sphere.
Overall, four talking points arose during the presentations that I felt were worthy of briefly singling out. Many of these points touch on the broader discussions happening in the biosimilar sphere, including tailored development, interchangeability, immunogenicity, device innovation, and overall patient and provider education.
Since 2004, biosimilars markets and their regulation have been evolving with the rise of two powerhouses: Europe and the US. How does the rise of the China biosimilars market fit this established picture?
Here, I’ll discuss some of the current physician knowledge gaps in the different therapeutic areas. Similarly, I’ll delve into the discussions surrounding what educational strategies and guidelines may be needed on the hospital or national level to improve physicians’ and patients’ relationships with biosimilars.
On March 5, 2019, Representative Anna Eshoo (D-CA) introduced H.R. 1520, the “Purple Book Continuity Act of 2019.” The bill addresses the availability of information about approved biological products that may support the development of biosimilar products. It has five cosponsors in the House, drawn from both sides of the aisle, and was considered with five other bills by the House Energy and Commerce Committee on April 3, 2019. The Committee advanced the bill, along with five others, as a step toward addressing runaway drug pricing.
Whether it be pointing out specific unmet needs in IBD or suggesting meaningful educational materials for patients, one patient advocate delivered great examples of how manufacturers can support patient advocates and provide them with the information they need most today.
In this first of two articles, an advocate from the Crohn's and Colitis Foundation shares details about the Foundation’s ongoing initiatives in terms of educating physicians, as well as what can be done to better understand and improve physicians’ biologics and biosimilar prescribing practices.