• Risk-Based Strategies For Revalidating Bio/Pharma Equipment & Systems

    While equipment and systems validation is a regulatory requirement, it would take thousands of annual tests to retest all equipment and systems. BioPhorum shares risk-based approaches to new product introduction, controlled temperature chambers, sterilization processes, and more.

  • FDA Issues Pandemic Remote Inspection Guidance For Drug Manufacturing Facilities

    On April 14, 2021, the FDA released a new guidance, Remote Interactive Evaluations of Drug Manufacturing and Bioresearch Monitoring Facilities During the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency. This article discusses planning, conducting, and concluding a remote interactive evaluation under this guidance, and shares how to submit public comments for FDA consideration.

  • Fixing The Follow-On Insulin Regulatory Approval “Dead Zone”

    With all the attention on the costs of pharmaceutical products, there is an upcoming regulatory “dead zone” that will potentially delay market entry of certain insulin products, adversely impacting insulin prices for consumers and payors. A recent Senate bill has been proposed to address this regulatory anomaly. Industry players should monitor this bill and other efforts to address the insulin dead zone, given how critical this product is to so many people.

  • The Biosimilar Market Is Evolving: How Can Education Strategies Follow Suit?

    In this article, I’ll discuss the importance of one commonly overlooked expert and highlight one recent educational initiative that exemplifies current needs in biosimilar communication strategies.  

  • New Medicare Proposals Could Impact Biosimilar Competition

    In early January, both Pew and MedPAC presented several suggested changes to current Medicare Part B policy. Though these two organizations' proposals have their differences, the ultimate goal of both is to encourage competition between biosimilars and reference products, which would help with affordability for biologics.

  • Celltrion: Data Transparency Imperative For Biosimilar Success

    Over the past year, the biosimilar industry has developed two mantras: “education, education, education,” and “strategy, strategy, strategy.” But after my conversation with HoUng Kim, the head of the strategy and operations division for Celltrion Healthcare, I’d like to add another mantra to this list: “data, data, data.”

  • Interchangeability: Have Biosimilar Makers Been Set Up To Fail?

    Last week, the Journal of Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy (JMCP) published research revealing current pharmacist perceptions on biosimilar naming. A number of media resources have leapt on the findings of this study as indicative of a potential danger the naming system alone could cause. But I feel as though these results speak to a greater issue with interchangeability that is worth examining a little more closely.

ABOUT BIOSIMILAR REGULATIONS

The first biosimilar was approved for the European market in 2006. While the regulatory pathway for biosimilars in the U.S. was created as part of the Affordable Care Act in March 2010, the first biosimilar was only recently approved for the U.S. market in March 2015.

Biosimilars are essentially generic versions of large molecule biologics. However, the fact they are not exact copies of the reference product makes establishing regulations for their approval and release to market a more complicated process. The WHO, along with many other parties in the pharmaceutical industry, has argued that regulations governing the development and approval of small molecule generics are not appropriate for more complex biological medicines. As such, the WHO set out to establish regulations articulating the efficacy, safety, and quality standards biosimilars must meet and maintain to make it to market. These regulations specify that a biosimilar must prove its biosimilarity to a reference product through head-to-head comparisons. The biosimilar company must also submit non-clinical and clinical studies data and a pharmacovigilance plan to the appropriate regulatory body. Those navigating the landscape of current biosimilars regulations face the challenge of demonstrating a biosimilar’s safety, purity, efficacy, and potency.

The current U.S. Food and Drug Association (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) regulations for biosimilars require these biologic copies to undergo extensive analytical chemistry, manufacturing, and control (CMC) and clinical processes to prove similarity to the reference product. However, in comparison to the originator biologic, a biosimilar could see an accelerated approval process, as it might need less data to meet the established regulations. The EMA was the first regulatory authority to establish marketing regulations for biosimilars in 2005. Other countries including Australia, Canada, Japan, Korea, and South Africa have since turned to the EMA’s regulations, as well as the WHO’s regulations, as a model for crafting their own regulations. In 2012, the FDA released three draft guidances to assist biosimilar developers in demonstrating their product’s biosimilarity. To comply with existing U.S. regulations, manufacturers are expected to include structural analysis, functional assays, and data from animal and human clinical trials in their applications. As biosimilar production spreads globally, regulations have continued to shift and evolve. Currently, each governing body has differing definitions/terminology for biosimilars, and as such, has established varying regulations dictating what studies and data are needed to be approved for the market.  

#ONBIOSIMILARS