Reliance is a precedented solution that offers important advantages for regulators and is a particularly rational approach for biosimilars.
Authors of an opinion piece suggest that a "reliance" approach to biosimilar approval could lead to global standards for acceptance that cut down on wasted review time and obsolete clinical investigation.
Is there a double standard when it comes to regulatory requirements for data on originator biologics vs biosimilars?
Authors of an opinion article in BioDrugs argue that biosimilar developers are often required to perform comparability testing that is not expected of originator biologics developers. They suggest that via a “reliance” approach, regulators worldwide could share data and standards on biosimilar acceptance, leading to faster approvals, rather than expending resources conducting separate reviews and requiring study data that may be redundant.
Reliance is a precedented solution that offers important advantages for regulators and is a particularly rational approach for biosimilars.
The authors hinge their argument partly on advances in comparability assessments, which help determine whether a reference biologic produced by a new manufacturing process or a biosimilar has clinically meaningful differences from the previously approved originator product.
They note that originator companies often implement manufacturing process changes or extend biologics manufacturing to different locations and may not be required to do more than analytical testing to confirm consistency of product. Biosimilar development relies on conformity with the reference product; therefore, the regulatory requirements for acceptance should not be different, the authors argue
The authors contend that a consistent application of the science of comparability to all biologics would improve the efficiency of biosimilar development and review, stimulate market competition, and expand patient access.
Advances in Analytical Characterization
Modern analytical tools allow for more sensitive and reliable data on comparability that is “often sufficient to confirm comparability without the use of other methods,” they wrote. They outlined technological advances in 4 key areas that have driven the evolution of comparability assessments:
Clinical Equivalence Studies
The authors noted that following a change to the manufacturing process of an originator biologic, analytical data “are almost invariably considered to be sufficient by all major regulators” to demonstrate that the change has not altered the approved version of the originator biologic. Incongruously, clinical studies may be required for a biosimilar to demonstrate similarity, they said.
However, following establishment of analytical and pharmacokinetic similarity, clinical equivalence studies “generally do not provide new information as regards biosimilarity,” the authors wrote, citing research on the approvals of approximately 100 biosimilars. This echoed concerns the same group expressed in a previous article published in 2019, where they called the “totality of evidence” biosimilars development paradigm “unnecessarily burdensome and inefficient.”
Reliance upon a technical assessment conducted in another jurisdiction would not subsequently commit regulators to the same, or indeed any, regulatory action, and they would retain their statutory independence and responsibilities for regulation at all times.
They noted that the United Kingdom’s Medicines & Healthcare Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has already moved toward a more efficient approach by downscaling requirements for clinical equivalence data for biosimilar approvals. Other regulators are considering similar revisions. These considerations, the authors said, are driven “partly by the typical redundancy of clinical equivalence trials to the conclusion of biosimilarity and the lack of ethical justification for unnecessary trials.”
In May 2021, MHRA released guidance on the licensing of biosimilar products stating that comparative efficacy trials may not be necessary to demonstrate biosimilarity in most cases. The United Kingdom’s post-Brexit guidance on biosimilars also does not require in vivo animal studies to support biosimilarity.
“Double Standard”
"Almost invariably,” regulators allow sponsors of reference biologics to “support their products’ indications in multiple jurisdictions by submission of the same clinical data,” the authors wrote.
The authors said regulatory requirements for additional layers of evidence (ie, bridging studies) demonstrating equivalence for biosimilars as “unnecessary and tedious impositions upon biosimilar sponsors to generate data whose conclusions are already known.” The same group of authors previously discussed costs associated with bridging studies in a review article published in 2017.
“Application of the same calculus to biosimilars as has been applied to reference biologics for decades,” they wrote, “would greatly facilitate the development of new biosimilars with no loss of scientific rigor or safety and no change in the product that is finally approved.”
A critical lever for the improvement of access and control of healthcare costs is the efficiency of development and review, because such improvements in efficiency can allow more competition in the marketplace.
Regulatory Reliance
This approach is “a particularly rational approach for biosimilars,” the authors said, in part because regulators would be familiar with the reference product marketed in their jurisdiction and because of the recent advances in analytical techniques: “The orthogonal and replicate nature of biosimilarity data ensures that conclusions are unequivocal and not liable to differ between competent reviewers.”
"Reliance upon a technical assessment conducted in another jurisdiction would not subsequently commit regulators to the same, or indeed any, regulatory action, and they would retain their statutory independence and responsibilities for regulation at all times," they wrote.
Data Show Promise for Adalimumab Biosimilars to Deliver on Safety, Cost Savings
May 16th 2024Two posters from the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy’s annual meeting provided hope that despite low uptake so far, adalimumab biosimilars can deliver on the promise of comparable safety and efficacy with the originator in multiple disease states, as well as cost savings.
Biosimilars Policy Roundup for April 2024—Podcast Edition
May 5th 2024On this episode of Not So Different, The Center for Biosimilars® glances back at all the major biosimilar policy updates from April, including 2 FDA approvals, 1 European approval, and several insights into possible policy changes from the Festival of Biologics USA conference.
Challenges and Guidance in Biosimilar Assessment: An ISPOR Report on HTA Agency Approaches
May 14th 2024The ISPOR report highlights the urgent need for clear guidance on when and how to conduct health technology assessments (HTAs) for biosimilars, emphasizing the challenges faced by HTA agencies and the evolving role of HTAs in evaluating biosimilar value.
Decoding the Patent Puzzle: Navigating the Legal Landscape of Biosimilars
March 17th 2024On this episode of Not So Different, Ha Kung Wong, JD, an intellectual patent attorney and partner at Venable LLP, details the confusing landscape that is the US patent system and how it can be improved to help companies overcome barriers to biosimilar competition.
Partnering for Biosimilar Security: India's Role in US Health Care Savings, Supply Chain Stability
May 9th 2024As Indian pharmaceutical companies supplied 4 of every 10 prescriptions in the US in 2022, generating $1.3 trillion in health care savings, a new IQVIA report highlights concerns about supply chain risks and advocates for partnerships to bolster biosimilar security and overall supply chain resilience.
Data Show Promise for Adalimumab Biosimilars to Deliver on Safety, Cost Savings
May 16th 2024Two posters from the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy’s annual meeting provided hope that despite low uptake so far, adalimumab biosimilars can deliver on the promise of comparable safety and efficacy with the originator in multiple disease states, as well as cost savings.
Biosimilars Policy Roundup for April 2024—Podcast Edition
May 5th 2024On this episode of Not So Different, The Center for Biosimilars® glances back at all the major biosimilar policy updates from April, including 2 FDA approvals, 1 European approval, and several insights into possible policy changes from the Festival of Biologics USA conference.
Challenges and Guidance in Biosimilar Assessment: An ISPOR Report on HTA Agency Approaches
May 14th 2024The ISPOR report highlights the urgent need for clear guidance on when and how to conduct health technology assessments (HTAs) for biosimilars, emphasizing the challenges faced by HTA agencies and the evolving role of HTAs in evaluating biosimilar value.
Decoding the Patent Puzzle: Navigating the Legal Landscape of Biosimilars
March 17th 2024On this episode of Not So Different, Ha Kung Wong, JD, an intellectual patent attorney and partner at Venable LLP, details the confusing landscape that is the US patent system and how it can be improved to help companies overcome barriers to biosimilar competition.
Partnering for Biosimilar Security: India's Role in US Health Care Savings, Supply Chain Stability
May 9th 2024As Indian pharmaceutical companies supplied 4 of every 10 prescriptions in the US in 2022, generating $1.3 trillion in health care savings, a new IQVIA report highlights concerns about supply chain risks and advocates for partnerships to bolster biosimilar security and overall supply chain resilience.
2 Commerce Drive
Cranbury, NJ 08512