The Therapeutic Goods Administration has announced that it will not use 4-letter suffixes in naming biologic and biosimilar medicines (as the FDA currently requires).
Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) in Australia has announced that it will not use 4-letter suffixes in naming biologic and biosimilar medicines as the FDA currently requires.
The decision comes after several years of consideration and evaluation, and the adoption of different global approaches. When the time came to make a decision, the TGA considered 4 options:
TGA heard suggestions and concerns from various stakeholders in evaluating its decision. According to TGA, this decision is supported by most stakeholders. TAG’s position includes a future possible move toward adopting the EU’s barcode system, which incorporates the product code, national identification number, batch number, and expiry date.
In addition to the updated naming practice, the government also announced that its decision to strengthen AE reporting will include making the products’ brand name as well as non-proprietary name a mandatory field when reporting an AE.
The International Generic and Biosimilar medicines Association (IGBA) announced its support of the Australian Government’s decision to maintain the existing mandate for naming biologic and biosimilar medicines.
The government’s decision aligns with that of the European Union, which has approved the largest number of biosimilar medicines worldwide. The decision also aligns with the World Health Organization’s (WHO) approach to nomenclature.
The decision stands in contrast to the United States’ approach, however, whereby all biologics and biosimilars must have a 4-letter suffix, devoid of meaning, added to the end of newly approved biologics’ and biosimilars’ nonproprietary names. The first implementation of the FDA’s mandate to apply the suffix to newly approved innovator drugs came in November 2017 with the FDA approval of Roche’s Hemlibra (emicizumab-kxwh).
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.
Biosimilars Policy Roundup for September 2024—Podcast Edition
October 6th 2024On this episode of Not So Different, we discuss the FDA's approval of a new biosimilar for treating retinal conditions, which took place in September 2024 alongside other major industry developments, including ongoing legal disputes and broader trends in market dynamics and regulatory challenges.
FDA, EMA Approve Second Pair of Denosumab Biosimilars
February 17th 2025The FDA and European Medicines Agency (EMA) granted approval, with interchangeability in the US, to Samsung Bioepis' denosumab biosimilars, which will be marketed under different names depending on whether they will be used to treat osteoporosis or bone metastases.