Sarfaraz K. Niazi, PhD, chronicles how drug master files (DMF) can be used in the biosimilar approval process and the role contract development and manufacturing organizations (CDMOs) can play in improving biosimilar accessibility.
While regulatory approval paths for the approval of biosimilars are becoming less stringent, based on the accumulated scientific knowledge and the responsibility of the regulatory agencies to ensure that there is no abuse of humans in the testing of biosimilars, I anticipated that, like the United Kingdom’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, the FDA and European Medicines Agency (EMA) will come to agree—in clear terms—that efficacy testing in patients is not expected. I anticipate a deluge of biosimilar developers to make regulatory filings, but only if they can afford to establish compliance manufacturing.
There is one window that is open but rarely exploited is the supply of the biological drug substance by a third party, in the same model as widely used in the development of generic drugs. The FDA allows it but with a difference: “Although FDA’s approach to the use of master files in BLAs under the PHS Act [Public Health Service Act] largely parallels its approach to the use of DMFs [Drug Master Files] in applications under the [Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act], there is a significant difference: a BLA [biologics license application] holder is generally expected to have knowledge of and control over the manufacturing process for the biological product for which it has a license.”
For BLAs under the PHS Act, the FDA has, as a scientific matter, generally not permitted applicants to incorporate information about drug substance, drug substance intermediate, or drug product by reference to a master file; instead, FDA expects typically such information to be submitted directly within the BLA.
The process of submitting a DMF containing information intended for use by applications for biological products is identical to what is used for chemical generic drugs. You may also use these templates, and more information can be obtained by emailing cberrims@fda.hhs.gov.
The primary cost of establishing a biosimilar manufacturing facility is the upstream manufacturing that starts from the cell line selection to manufacturing system validation, demonstration of analytical similarity, and finally, manufacturing a Good Manufacturing Practice clinical lot at a commercial scale. The fill-and-finish part that comes next is also important since it can affect the process-related quality attributes. Still, this testing burden is readily outsourced to the same Contract Development and Manufacturing Organization (CDMO) providing the development solutions (DS).
The concept of a CDMO becoming an active pharmaceutical ingredient supplier is not new, though it has never been applied to biological drug substances. The top 10 CDMOs have multi-billion-dollar revenues and can readily establish FDA or EMA-acceptable DS. The licensing agreements will be no different, except they will include assurance that should the DS process be changed, the CDMO will conduct the equivalence testing under the Q5E protocol. The commercial advantage to CDMOs will be a product lifeline of income much more than if they license out exclusively to one client.
Another advantage to CDMOs is that they can supply dozens of biological DS substances just as soon as their exclusivity expires, helping fill the pipeline that would otherwise not be possible by integrated developers regardless of their resources and capacity.
The biosimilar developers can further outsource the fill and finish part of the product, leading to a possibility of a biosimilar developer not investing in a manufacturing facility. This will allow dozens of developers to enter the market with the advantage that the CDMOs will be subject to competition, giving them the best DS prices from global sources.
Biosimilars can only be made accessible if enhanced competition is not coming if the current product development model is exercised. Today, all biosimilars licensed in the US are held by large or well-funded companies. It is about time that smaller and medium-sized companies with modest budgets should be able to compete with them. A new vision by the CDMOs can fill this gap in the supply chain.
Most CDMOs will be concerned with the liability as a DS supplier, but this can be resolved by creating a corporate shield of a DMF supplier. They will also need to expand their expertise in the regulatory area. Still, once their DS has been approved for one product, this will open the doors to multiple clients globally, a possibility that is most exciting in ensuring the supply of safe and effective biosimilars worldwide.
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.
Biosimilars Council: PBM Rebate Schemes Cost Americans, Payers $6 Billion
April 10th 2024A report from the Biosimilars Council evaluating IQVIA data found that rebate schemes orchestrated by pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) are costing US patients and payers billions of dollars by suppressing biosimilar adoption.