Biosana Pty Ltd, a subsidiary of BiosanaPharma BV, says it received permission from the Australian Bellberry Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) to start a phase 1 trial for a biosimilar version of omalizumab.
Biosana Pty Ltd, a subsidiary of BiosanaPharma BV, says it received permission from the Australian Bellberry Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) to start a phase 1 trial for a biosimilar version of omalizumab.
The trial consists of a bioequivalence, double-blind, randomized, 2 parallel-group study of the firm’s humanized anti-immunoglobulin E monoclonal antibody BP001 as lyophilized powder formulation compared with the reference product (Xolair) in healthy male volunteers. Results are expected in the fourth quarter of this year.
Before seeking approval from the HREC for the trial, an extensive comparability exercise was performed between BP001 and the reference Xolair, which is marketed by Novartis. Comparability exercises indicated functional, binding, and structural similarity between the 2 molecules, and the laboratory exercise was also enough for Biosana to obtain a waiver for preclinical studies in animal models from the European Medicines Agency, the company says.
Ard Tijsterman, MSc, the chief executive officer of BiosanaPharma, says the company is “happy and proud” to begin trials of its first biosimilar product and will start talks with potential marketing and sales partners for phase 3 trials.
Novartis’ omalizumab lost its primary patent protection in the United States in June 2017, and in Europe in August 2017.
At least 2 other biosimilars are currently in development: GBR 310 from Glenmark Pharmaceuticals, and STI-004 from Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc, in collaboration with Mabtech.
STI-004 is the farthest along, having completed a combined phase 2 and phase 3 trial in China in 2016. Though the developers have not yet announced a filing of a Biologics License Application with the FDA, the potential biosimilar met its primary end point in the multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.
A phase 1 study of GBR 310 revealed similar pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, safety, and immunogenicity profiles to reference omalizumab.
Novartis, for its part, is fighting back against encroaching challengers in this therapeutic space. In October, the FDA granted approval for a pre-filled syringe formulation of the reference product. Additionally, Novartis is looking to expand omalizumab’s indications, as it recently earned FDA’s breakthrough therapy designation in August 2018 as a treatment for food allergies. In 2017, omalizumab brought in $1.75 billion in the United States alone.
Escaping the Void: All Things Biosimilars With Craig & G
May 4th 2025To close out the Festival of Biologics, Craig Burton and Giuseppe Randazzo from the Association for Accessible Medicines and the Biosimilars Council tackle the current biosimilar landscape and how the industry can emerge from the "biosimilar void."
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?
The Trump Administration’s Drug Price Actions and Why US Prices Are Already Sky-High
May 17th 2025While the Trump administration’s latest executive order touts sweeping drug price cuts through international benchmarking, the broader pharmaceutical pricing crisis in the US reveals a far more complex web of development costs, profit incentives, and absent price controls—raising the question of whether any single policy, including potential drug tariffs, can truly untangle it.
Switching From Avastin to Bevacizumab-bvzr in CRC, NSCLC Can Reduce Medicare Costs
May 10th 2025Monthly savings from fully converting Medicare patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) and non-squamous metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from reference bevacizumab to bevacizumab-bvzr could fund 13,887 and 8,959 additional patient-months of treatment, respectively, according to a cost-effectiveness study.