This March, the FDA released updated guidance on the naming of biologics, biosimilars, and interchangeable biosimilars. In the document, the FDA indicated that it no longer intends to retroactively give approved biologics 4-letter suffixes devoid of meaning, but it will continue to assign suffixes to newly approved innovator biologics, biosimilars, or interchangeable biosimilars. In addition, FDA does not intend to add suffixes to the names of transition products. This week, the comment period on the updated guidance closed, and the FDA heard from a variety of stakeholders who asked the agency to change its direction.
This story had been updated.
This March, the FDA released updated guidance on the naming of biologics, biosimilars, and interchangeable biosimilars. In the document, the FDA indicated that it no longer intends to retroactively give approved biologics 4-letter suffixes devoid of meaning, but it will continue to assign suffixes to newly approved innovator biologics, biosimilars, or interchangeable biosimilars. In addition, FDA does not intend to add suffixes to the names of transition products.
This week, the comment period on the updated guidance closed, and the FDA heard from a variety of stakeholders who asked the agency to change its direction.
The United States Pharmacopeia voiced support of the FDA’s decision not to retrospectively assign suffixes to the names of already approved products, but said that it remains concerned that applying suffixes to newly approved products will have unintended consequences. Healthcare performance improvement company Vizient echoed that idea, applauding the decision not to require suffixes for existing biologics, but saying that suffixes for newly approved products are unnecessary and confusing.
America’s Health Insurance Plans called the FDA’s proposed naming convention a “step backward for the US biosimilars market,” and said that no products should be given a suffix in order to take a more efficient regulatory approach.
In a statement to The Center for Biosimilars®, Susan Cantrell, RPh, CAE, chief executive officer of the Academy of Managed Care Pharamcy, went even farther, saying that, “The FDA’s updated draft guidance on biosimilars naming undermines their efforts to promote the use of biosimilars. Creating 2 separate naming conventions for the same class of products will confuse providers and reduce uptake, potentially leaving billions of dollars in savings on the table at a time when our nation desperately needs to lower health care costs.”
In its comment letter, the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society wrote that while it shares the FDA’s desire to appropriately track adverse events and collect data on the performance of biologics and biosimilars, using National Drug Code numbers, brand names, lot numbers, and a scannable bar code are sufficient to identify products and protect patient health. Adding suffixes, said the society, would create “incorrect perceptions that there are different and inferior classes of biologics and biosimilars.”
The National Kidney Foundation asked the FDA for a compromise; the foundation called on the agency to revert to its previous plan of assigning suffixes to all biologics, including already approved and marketed products. Doing so would help to ensure appropriate adverse event reporting while “creating a level playing field” for originator and biosimilar products.
Biosimilar developer Pfizer, too, saw value in giving suffixes to all biologics. Pfizer said in its letter that it agrees that biosimilars’ names should be distinguishable from their references, pointed out that suffixes are not routinely included in adverse event reports, and said that it believes that requiring suffixes for both approved and new products could increase the likelihood that suffixes would be used in this way.
It also said that failing to give already approved products suffixes could hinder market uptake for biosimilars; for example, Pfizer foresees possible “situations where a physician prescribes a product utilizing the [international nonproprietary name] without the suffix even if the intention was to prescribe a biosimilar.” The drug maker also called for meaningful suffixes linked to the drug’s license holder.
Novartis and Sandoz proposed a similar solution to Pfizer's if the agency forges ahead with its plan, writing that "if the FDA decides to continue with the implementation of a 4-letter suffix for biologic, we urge the agency to consider selective retroactive implementation to reference products of approved biosimilars and interchangeable biologics to ensure consistency." However, the companies say that suffixes are "not warranted nor desirable," and the FDA should reconsider their use entirely.
The Biotechnology Innovation Organization, however, which represents innovator biologic makers, said that the new guidance represents an important step forward with implementing the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act, and while it called for meaningful suffixes, said that the FDA’s plan will allow for robust pharmacovigilance and allow for targeted regulatory action if needed.
The naming guidance has also been the subject of intense attention at the international level; the International Generic and Biosimilar Medicines Association, which represents industry members associations both in North America and in Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, South America, and the Middle East, said it disagrees with the use of suffixes to achieve the shared goal of robust pharmacovigilance. According to IGBA’s comment letter, the FDA should take part in the global consensus on product identification in order not to undermine cross-border pharmacovigilance activities, including the implementation of the Identification of Medicinal Products standards that have been developed to ensure interoperability across global regulatory communities.
IGBA highlighted the fact that European pharmacovigilance systems have achieved 96.7% product identification across 10 classes of biologics and biosimilars without the use of suffixes, and it said that a 2-tier naming system creates confusion and is “illogical, inconsistent, and unfounded.”
Furthermore, IGBA took issue with the FDA’s stated concern about the cost of retrospectively assigning suffixes to the names of already approved biologics, writing that “if retrospective application is too complicated and costly to implement, as the 2019 naming guidance update suggests, the suffix-based system must be removed for all biologics, including biosimilar medicines.”
Julie Reed: Why 2024 Is Important for Biosimilars
April 17th 2024Julie Reed, executive director of the Biosimilars Forum, showcases how the biosimilar industry is expected to develop throughout 2024, including major policy changes and hope for continued improvement in market share for adalimumab biosimilars.
Exploring the Biosimilar Horizon: Julie Reed's Predictions for 2024
February 18th 2024On this episode of Not So Different, Julie Reed, executive director of the Biosimilars Forum, returns to discuss her predictions for the biosimilar industry for 2024 and beyond as well as the impact that the Forum's 4 new members will have on the organization's mission.
Alvotech’s Stelara Biosimilar, Selarsdi, Receives FDA Approval
April 16th 2024Alvotech’s Selarsdi (ustekinumab-aekn), a biosimilar referencing Stelara (ustekinumab), gained FDA approval, making it the second ustekinumab biosimilar and second for the company to be given the green light for the American market.
A New Chapter: How 2023 Will Shape the US Biosimilar Space for 2024 and Beyond
December 31st 2023On this episode of Not So Different, Cencora's Brian Biehn and Corey Ford take a look back at major policy and regulatory advancements in 2023 and how these changes will alter the space going forward.
BioRationality: Removing the Misconceptions Surrounding Interchangeability
April 15th 2024Sarfaraz K. Niazi, PhD, outlines the current state of interchangeable biosimilars in the US and policy changes needed to clear up misconceptions surrounding the meaning behind interchangeability designations.
Global Biosimilar Market Projected to Reach $1.3 Trillion by 2032
April 11th 2024The global biosimilar market is projected to surge from $25.1 billion in 2022 to approximately $1.3 trillion by 2032, with a compound annual growth rate of 17.6%, driven mainly by the increasing prevalence of cancer and the cost-effectiveness of biosimilars, as outlined in a report by Towards Healthcare.