“It is now time to reassess whether the current clinical development paradigm really makes sense from a scientific and economic perspective while millions of patients still have limited or, more often, no access to life-changing/life-saving [monoclonal antibodies],” writes Francois-Xavier Frapaise, MD, PhD.
Phase 3 clinical trials that compare proposed biosimilars with their reference molecules are a cornerstone of the regulatory approval process. However, writing in BioDrugs, Francois-Xavier Frapaise, MD, PhD, argues that as analytical methods for understanding the structure—function relationship of biotherapeutics have advanced, large and expensive phase 3 trials for biosimilars may no longer provide the most meaningful information on the equivalence of biosimilars and their reference products.
Frapaise writes that the primary structure of proteins and possible post-translational modifications can be reliably characterized by a variety of methods, including peptide mapping by liquid chromatography—mass spectrometry. Bioactivity of proteins can be assessed by measuring cell uptake and proliferation, among other methods. A variety of techniques, such as binding analysis by surface plasmon resonance, allow for assessment of target binding. Protein content and concentration can be reliably measured, and the presence of high–molecular-weight species or aggregates can be readily detected. Furthermore, a variety of means exist to assess higher-order structures, and to measure charge distribution, glycosylation, and process-related impurities.
Not only have analytical methods progressed in their level of sophistication, writes Frapaise, but developers are also better equipped to understand the structure—activity relationships of biologic medicines; for example, developers are now well aware that the glycan profile can impact a product’s safety.
According to Frapaise, comparative phase 1 pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies, which are generally large in size and expose volunteers to the investigational compounds for up to 1 year, can address the question of immunogenicity without the need for a phase 3 study.
In fact, he argues, phase 3 trials pose a variety of challenges, and have inherent limitations. They are not powered to detect meaningful differences in safety profiles, says Frapaise, and when numerical differences in adverse events are present, these imbalances are difficult to interpret. Detecting differences in efficacy is also challenging, he says, in trials that enroll approximately 500 to 800 patients.
“It is also worth noting that the chances of observing differences in immunogenicity in [rheumatoid arthritis] patients, many of them receiving methotrexate—an immunosuppressant—are, at best, remote,” he adds.
Therefore, a different approach to confirming biosimilarity could be the use of postmarketing studies and real-world data, he argues. Taking such an approach could ease the financial burden and time requirement for biosimilar development.
Read more about real-world evidence in biosimilars.
“It is now time to reassess whether the current clinical development paradigm really makes sense from a scientific and economic perspective while millions of patients still have limited or, more often, no access life-changing/life-saving [monoclonal antibodies],” concludes Frapaise. In many cases, he says, chemistry, manufacturing, and controls information and meaningful phase 1 studies will leave little residual uncertainty about the biosimilarity of products, and properly designed postapproval studies could be “more appropriate” than phase 3 trials.
Reference
Frapaise FX. The end of phase 3 clinical trials in biosimilars development? BioDrugs. 2018;32(4): 319-324. doi: 10.1007/s40259-018-0287-0.
Biosimilar Market Development Requires Strategic Flexibility and Global Partnerships
April 29th 2025Thriving in the evolving biosimilar market demands bold collaboration, early global partnerships, and a fresh approach to development strategies to overcome uncertainty and drive future success.
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.
BioRationality: EMA Accepts Waiver of Clinical Efficacy Testing of Biosimilars
April 21st 2025Sarfaraz K. Niazi, PhD, shares his latest citizen's petition to the FDA, calling on the agency to waive clinical efficacy testing in response to the European Medicines Agency's (EMA) efforts towards the same goal.
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.
How State Substitution Laws Shape Insulin Biosimilar Adoption
April 15th 2025States with fewer restrictions on biosimilar substitution tend to see higher uptake of interchangeable insulin glargine, showing how even small policy details can significantly influence biosimilar adoption and expand access to more affordable insulin.
Experts Pressure Congress to Remove Roadblocks for Biosimilars
April 12th 2025Lawmakers and expert witnesses emphasized the potential of biosimilars to lower health care costs by overcoming barriers like pharmacy benefit manager practices, limited awareness, and regulatory delays to improve access and competition in chronic disease management during a recent congressional hearing.