Findings from a recent study emphasize the need for improvement and changes regarding follow-on biologics and biosimilars in the global biosimilar market.
Recent data could contribute to discussions on generating more transparency about global approvals of follow-on biologics and supporting access to high-quality biosimilars in countries around the world, according to a study published in BioDrugs.
The study used the term follow-on biologic as an umbrella term for FDA-classified biosimilars as well as biologics that are biosimilars by definition but are not officially declared as such in the United States (eg, Basaglar, Granix). This is because they were approved before the establishment of the biosimilar approval pathway (the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act). These products, sometimes called authorized generics, may be classified as biosimilars in other global markets.
This study was conducted because present knowledge is limited about which manufacturers are active globally in biopharmaceutical product development and how many unique follow-on biologics are approved in international markets.
First, researchers wanted to provide a cross-sectional overview of manufacturers of follow-on biologics approved in 15 countries from different regions of the world, and in 5 major biosimilar markets with long-established biosimilar frameworks.
“The biosimilar approach involves a robust comparability exercise to prove that the follow-on biologic is clinically equivalent to the innovator product and does not compromise on safety and efficacy,” the researchers wrote.
Next, national drug databases were screened to distinguish follow-on biologics and their manufacturers approved in 15 countries in Asia, Africa, Latin America, and the rest of the globe, and 5 major biosimilar markets: the European Union (including the United Kingdom), the United States, Canada, Australia, and Japan.
Then, the study detected 304 follow-on biologics from various manufacturers for 18 active substance classes included in the analysis. Of these, 67 products were approved as biosimilars in at least 1 of the 5 major biosimilar markets. This study found that the bulk of follow-on biologics were only approved in their respective country of manufacturing. A small number of these, primarily from India and Argentina, supplied their products to other parts of the world.
“As some countries have less stringent regulatory approaches for biosimilars, or have only recently implemented biosimilar guidance in line with World Health Organization (WHO) standards, follow-on biologics could have been approved that would not be considered biosimilars according to the [WHO] standards,” said the researchers.
Researchers expect that a significant portion of the 237 follow-on biologics, particularly recent approvals, can be considered biosimilars according to WHO biosimilar standards despite not being available as biosimilars in any of the 5 major biosimilar markets.
The authors made a number of takeaways and policy recommendations based on the results, including:
Based on the findings of this study, the researchers recommend follow-up studies to analyze the possible existence of noninnovator biologics in global markets.
“In the end, this study wants to contribute to discussions on how to improve and accelerate global access to safe and high-quality biosimilars that are imperative for healthcare systems around the world,” the researchers concluded.
This study only provides a glimpse of approvals of follow-on biologics. The information provided is dependent on the completeness of information databases and other regulatory documents, and the available information on initial approval dates of individual follow-on biologics was limited, which could all be considered limitations.
Reference
Klein K, Gencoglu M, Heisterberg J, Acha V, Stolk P. The global landscape of manufacturers of follow-on biologics: an overview of five major biosimilar markets and 15 countries. BioDrugs. 2022;37:235-245. doi:10.1007/s40259-022-00568-0
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 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.
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.