Fourteen parties have submitted comments on the guidance; in addition to other concerns with the document, including calls for clarification on the use of non-US comparator products and the potential for the waiver of bridging studies in the biosimilar development process, some drug makers called on the FDA to clarify issues associated with lot-to-lot variation and quality attributes.
In May 2018, the FDA published draft guidance related to comparative analytical assessment and other quality-related considerations for the development of therapeutic protein biosimilars. The document replaced previous draft guidance that was withdrawn in June 2018.
Fourteen parties have submitted comments on the guidance; in addition to other concerns with the document, including calls for clarification on the use of non-US comparator products and the potential for the waiver of bridging studies in the biosimilar development process, some drug makers called on the FDA to clarify issues associated with lot-to-lot variation and quality attributes.
In its comment letter, biosimilar developer Sandoz, together with its parent company, Novartis, said that it appreciates the FDA’s reconsideration of its statistical approach in favor of using quality ranges, calling it a practical approach that is consistent with regulations for biologic manufacturing.
However, Sandoz and Novartis called on the FDA to provide additional clarification. The letter notes that in cases in which products’ potency can vary among lots—in terms of antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity or complement-dependent cytotoxicity, for example—different lots of reference standards may also vary in their relative potency. In the biosimilar development process, the letter states, “a change of the relative potency of representative product lots is especially common to the point where it is almost inevitable when the manufacturing process of such biosimilar candidates is modified in the course of development to resolve differences observed in the comparative analytical assessment.”
Because the guidance does not discuss how to assign the potency of reference standards that show lot-to-lot variation, the comment letter proposes to clarify that, for products that have variable potency, difference reference standards can be assigned by a stated potency that may not equal 100%. According to the drug makers, this proposal will be suitable to help control for drift.
Also raised in the Sandoz and Novartis comment letter is a concern that the draft guidance could hold biosimilars to stricter guidelines than those applied to reference products.
In the guidance’s discussion of the distribution of attributes, the agency says that it recommends that sponsors target the centers of distribution of the quality attributes of the reference product as closely as possible. The agency may be concerned about a distribution of an attribute that is biased to one side of the reference drug’s distribution, the guidance says, especially if the attribute has a role in the mechanism of action.
Depending on how the agency applies this requirement, says the Sandoz and Novartis letter, an “unintentional bias” among companies could arise. The letter proposes to allow the entire range of a given quality attribute for an FDA-approved reference product to represent acceptable quality. In an email to The Center for Biosimilars®, a Sandoz representative explained that “Market competition could be impacted if biosimilar makers have to hit a smaller target than the reference medicine does on an ongoing basis,” and said that “this may particularly impact more complex or orphan indications.”
However, said the representative, requirements can and do evolve; “We expect that in time, health authorities will become more familiar with biosimilar medicines, thereby requiring the same level of scrutiny.”
Biosimilar Market Development Requires Strategic Flexibility and Global Partnerships
April 29th 2025Thriving in the evolving biosimilar market demands bold collaboration, early global partnerships, and a fresh approach to development strategies to overcome uncertainty and drive future success.
How AI Can Help Address Cost-Related Nonadherence to Biologic, Biosimilar Treatment
March 9th 2025Despite saving billions, biosimilars still account for only a small share of the biologics market—what's standing in the way of broader adoption and how can artificial intelligence (AI) help change that?
BioRationality: EMA Accepts Waiver of Clinical Efficacy Testing of Biosimilars
April 21st 2025Sarfaraz K. Niazi, PhD, shares his latest citizen's petition to the FDA, calling on the agency to waive clinical efficacy testing in response to the European Medicines Agency's (EMA) efforts towards the same goal.
Will the FTC Be More PBM-Friendly Under a Second Trump Administration?
February 23rd 2025On this episode of Not So Different, we explore the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) second interim report on pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) with Joe Wisniewski from Turquoise Health, discussing key issues like preferential reimbursement, drug pricing transparency, biosimilars, shifting regulations, and how a second Trump administration could reshape PBM practices.
How State Substitution Laws Shape Insulin Biosimilar Adoption
April 15th 2025States with fewer restrictions on biosimilar substitution tend to see higher uptake of interchangeable insulin glargine, showing how even small policy details can significantly influence biosimilar adoption and expand access to more affordable insulin.
Latest Biosimilar Deals Signal Growth Across Immunology, Oncology Markets
April 14th 2025During Q1 2025, pharmaceutical companies accelerated biosimilar expansion through strategic acquisitions and partnerships in hopes of boosting patient access to lower-cost treatments in immunology and oncology.