Fourteen parties have submitted comments on the guidance; in addition to other concerns with the document, including calls for clarification on the use of non-US comparator products and the potential for the waiver of bridging studies in the biosimilar development process, some drug makers called on the FDA to clarify issues associated with lot-to-lot variation and quality attributes.
In May 2018, the FDA published draft guidance related to comparative analytical assessment and other quality-related considerations for the development of therapeutic protein biosimilars. The document replaced previous draft guidance that was withdrawn in June 2018.
Fourteen parties have submitted comments on the guidance; in addition to other concerns with the document, including calls for clarification on the use of non-US comparator products and the potential for the waiver of bridging studies in the biosimilar development process, some drug makers called on the FDA to clarify issues associated with lot-to-lot variation and quality attributes.
In its comment letter, biosimilar developer Sandoz, together with its parent company, Novartis, said that it appreciates the FDA’s reconsideration of its statistical approach in favor of using quality ranges, calling it a practical approach that is consistent with regulations for biologic manufacturing.
However, Sandoz and Novartis called on the FDA to provide additional clarification. The letter notes that in cases in which products’ potency can vary among lots—in terms of antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity or complement-dependent cytotoxicity, for example—different lots of reference standards may also vary in their relative potency. In the biosimilar development process, the letter states, “a change of the relative potency of representative product lots is especially common to the point where it is almost inevitable when the manufacturing process of such biosimilar candidates is modified in the course of development to resolve differences observed in the comparative analytical assessment.”
Because the guidance does not discuss how to assign the potency of reference standards that show lot-to-lot variation, the comment letter proposes to clarify that, for products that have variable potency, difference reference standards can be assigned by a stated potency that may not equal 100%. According to the drug makers, this proposal will be suitable to help control for drift.
Also raised in the Sandoz and Novartis comment letter is a concern that the draft guidance could hold biosimilars to stricter guidelines than those applied to reference products.
In the guidance’s discussion of the distribution of attributes, the agency says that it recommends that sponsors target the centers of distribution of the quality attributes of the reference product as closely as possible. The agency may be concerned about a distribution of an attribute that is biased to one side of the reference drug’s distribution, the guidance says, especially if the attribute has a role in the mechanism of action.
Depending on how the agency applies this requirement, says the Sandoz and Novartis letter, an “unintentional bias” among companies could arise. The letter proposes to allow the entire range of a given quality attribute for an FDA-approved reference product to represent acceptable quality. In an email to The Center for Biosimilars®, a Sandoz representative explained that “Market competition could be impacted if biosimilar makers have to hit a smaller target than the reference medicine does on an ongoing basis,” and said that “this may particularly impact more complex or orphan indications.”
However, said the representative, requirements can and do evolve; “We expect that in time, health authorities will become more familiar with biosimilar medicines, thereby requiring the same level of scrutiny.”
Commercial Payer Coverage of Biosimilars: Market Share, Pricing, and Policy Shifts
December 4th 2024Researchers observe significant shifts in payer preferences for originator vs biosimilar products from 2017 to 2022, revealing growing payer interest in multiple product options, alongside the increasing market share of biosimilars, which contributed to notable reductions in both average sales prices and wholesale acquisition costs.
Biosimilars in America: Overcoming Barriers and Maximizing Impact
July 21st 2024Join us as we explore the complexities of the US biosimilars market, discussing legislative influences, payer and provider adoption factors, and strategies to overcome industry challenges with expert insights from Kyle Noonan, PharmD, MS, value & access strategy manager at Cencora.
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.
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.
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.
Eye on Pharma: EU Aflibercept Approvals; Biosimilars Canada Campaign; Celltrion Data
November 19th 2024The European Commission grants marketing authorization to 2 aflibercept biosimilars; Biosimilars Canada launches new campaign to provide sustainable solutions to employers; Celltrion shares positive data for 2 biosimilars.