AbbVie and Novartis are taking issue with the recent FDA final guidance on how biosimilars and their reference biologics are to be named. In comments about the posted guidance, the companies criticized the FDA’s naming convention, which requires retroactive changes to the nonproprietary names of existing biologics and biosimilars.
The FDA’s guidance specifies that product names are to include a four-letter meaningless suffix after a hyphen that follows the nonproprietary name. The suffix will be a requirement for all previously licensed originator biologics, related biological products, and biosimilars. The addition of the suffixes is part of the FDA’s plan to improve pharmacovigilance for reference biologics and their biosimilars.
“Retroactive application of the naming policy is not only unnecessary ‘for the proper performance of the functions of the agency,’ but it also is likely to undermine FDA’s objectives in adopting distinguishable nonproprietary names, ie, to ensure safe prescribing and robust pharmacovigilance,” AbbVie commented.
Both Novartis and AbbVie said that changing the nonproprietary names of existing products does nothing to support safe prescribing or pharmacovigilance. Novartis disagrees that the revised naming system will improve patient safety. “We believe such suffixes will not provide additional value beyond that of the current naming system, which has been used successfully for over 6 decades,” Novartis added.
AbbVie believes that changing the nonproprietary names of currently marketed products would impose significant burdens on industry, FDA, and the healthcare system that do not arise when manufacturers of both originator and biosimilar products are asked to adopt unique nonproprietary names before product approval.
Other stakeholders also weighed in. CVS Health’s Vice President of Policy and Regulatory Affairs, Donald Dempsey, said the FDA’s guidance could have negative effects on the marketplace and slow the development of affordable and accessible biosimilars. The FDA’s rule to create unique names could cause a situation where biosimilars with the same active ingredient but not an identical international nonproprietary name would be in different categories than originator products in provider databases, “creating a situation where each database warehouse would make these decisions independently of other warehouses, resulting in confusion and unnecessary complexity.” The company also expects there to be an impact on member and client website and mobile applications, along with client reporting. “Our mail and specialty pharmacies systems will also be impacted by this guidance,” Dempsey said, and each will have to be carefully assessed and enhanced to avoid negative client and provider impacts or member disruption. CVS Health estimates this effort would cost in excess of $1 million.
The Biologics Prescribers Collaborative, which includes several patient and physician organizations, including the American Gastroenterological Association, Endocrine Society, and the Alliance for Patient Access, commented that 80% of physicians in their groups support a meaningful, not random, suffix to be used for the biosimilar name.
Jillanne M. Schulte, JD, director of Federal Regulatory Affairs for the Association of Health-System Pharmacists also commented on the burden of the FDA naming convention, not simply for drug makers but for others who would have to change current systems to work with the new policy. This would mean hospitals, payers, and providers would need to spend thousands of hours on IT redesign and reprogramming.
Review Calls for Path to Global Harmonization of Biosimilar Development Regulations
March 17th 2025Global biosimilar regulatory harmonization will be needed to reduce development costs and improve patient access, despite challenges posed by differing national requirements and regulatory frameworks, according to review authors.
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?
From Amjevita to Zarxio: A Decade of US Biosimilar Approvals
March 6th 2025Since the FDA’s groundbreaking approval of Zarxio in 2015, the US biosimilars market has surged to 67 approvals across 18 originators—though the journey has been anything but smooth, with adoption facing hurdles along the way.
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.
Biosimilar Approvals Streamlined With Advanced Statistics Amidst Differing Regulatory Requirements
February 25th 2025The FDA and European Medicines Agency (EMA) mandate high similarity between biosimilars and reference products, but their regulatory processes differ, especially with multiple reference products.