Sarfaraz K. Niazi, PhD

Sarfaraz K. Niazi, PhD, a professor and biosimilar advocate, chronicles the current efforts to remove animal testing from application requirements for biosimilars under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA), including recent congressional action.

An expert on biotherapeutics recommends more science be applied to World Health Organization (WHO) biosimilar guideline revisions.

Convinced that he could circumvent the time-consuming process of aging whiskey, Center for Biosimilars® Advisory Board member Sarfaraz K. Niazi, PhD, used a lab process to create "biosimilar" whiskey.

The Center for Biosimilars® Advisory Board member Sarfaraz K. Niazi, PhD, explains an “against the grain” approach to tapping unmet need and revenue potential in biosimilars.

Refinements to the analytical testing of biosimilar candidates to verify similarity were worked into 2019 guidance from the FDA. These changes offer what the author considers a more "rational approach."

Animal toxicology studies still get included with biosimilar approval applications, although there are strong arguments that most of these studies are unnecessary. Sarfaraz K. Niazi, PhD, explains the pros and cons.

Clinical efficacy studies are not always required for biosimilars, and it's possible to resist if the FDA does ask for them. Sarfaraz K. Niazi, PhD, suggests a game plan.

Use of the 351(k) biosimilar approval pathway entails legal challenges, high costs, and potentially higher clinical evidence standards. Sarfaraz K. Niazi, PhD, suggests that using the 351(a) pathway for standalone drugs and copy products may be faster and better. This is part 3 of a series.

The road to production of biosimilar messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines could be very swift compared with the experience for other biologics. With fewer intellectual property restrictions, small manufacturers could step right in, according to Sarfaraz K. Niazi, PhD.

Sarfaraz K. Niazi, PhD, discusses the regulatory approval of future messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines, which will likely face fewer patent issues and are easy to replicate.

Sarfaraz K. Niazi, PhD, a member of The Center for Biosimilars® Advisory Board, reports on his citizen petition to the FDA to rationalize testing of biosimilars.

Sarfaraz K. Niazi, PhD, a member of The Center for Biosimilars® Advisory Board, recounts a debate with a young clinician over the reliability of biosimilarity testing.

Biosimilars have come a long way, and their path has mirrored that of generics—fraught with obstacles. Still, a stronger embrace is needed from physicians and payers.

Boehringer Ingelheim's argument hinges on how "strength" of formulation is defined in regulatory language.

The FDA may require comparative clinical efficacy for biosimilar approval, but on top of all the other required and available evidence, these trials add little value, Sarfaraz K. Niazi, PhD, states.

Although devastating in its toll on human life, the coronavirus disease 2019 will likely bring new understanding and technology and leave us better prepared to manage the next health threat of this scope.

Now is the time for the FDA to lead again in revising the biosimilar development guidance by eliminating all animal toxicology studies, and replacing them with larger-species pharmacokinetic (PK) studies, allowing the conduct of human PK studies using novel clinical protocols to combine the PK/pharmacodynamic/immunogenicity testing in a single study, and, where possible, avoid these studies if an in-silico approach can provide the confidence of pharmacologic similarity.

The World Health Organization’s guidance for the development and approval of biosimilars is based on faulty science and reasoning, and it represents a hazard to the safety of patients that must be corrected, according to Sarfaraz K. Niazi, PhD.

The final guidance on interchangeability resolves some issues, creates many new issues and inquiries, and offers a path—albeit not a clear one—that is filled with scientific and clinical challenges.