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.
Perceptions of Biosimilar Switching Among Veterans With IBD
December 2nd 2024Veterans with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) prioritize shared decision-making, transparency, and individualized care in biosimilar switching, favoring delayed switching for severe cases and greater patient control.
Biosimilars Development Roundup for October 2024—Podcast Edition
November 3rd 2024On this episode of Not So Different, we discuss the GRx+Biosims conference, which included discussions on data transparency, artificial intelligence (AI), and collaboration to enhance the global supply chain for biosimilars and generic drugs, as well as the evolving requirements for biosimilar devices.
Denosumab Biosimilars Earn Positive CHMP Opinion for Bone Loss and Giant Cell Tumor of Bone
November 26th 2024The European Medicines Agency Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has issued a positive opinion for the denosumab biosimilars SB16 for all indications referencing Prolia and Xgeva.
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.
The Rebate War: How Originator Companies Are Fighting Back Against Biosimilars
November 25th 2024Few biologics in the US have multiple biosimilar competitors, but originator biologics respond quickly to competition by increasing rebates and lowering net prices, despite short approval-to-launch timelines for biosimilars.
Boosting Health Care Sustainability: The Role of Biosimilars in Latin America
November 21st 2024Biosimilars could improve access to biologic treatments and health care sustainability in Latin America, but their adoption is hindered by misconceptions, regulatory gaps, and weak pharmacovigilance, requiring targeted education and stronger regulations.