The World Health Organization (WHO) has announced that, at present, it will not proceed with its proposal to use biological qualifiers (BQ) to assign international nonproprietary names to biosimilars.
The World Health Organization (WHO) has announced that, at present, it will not proceed with its proposal to use biological qualifiers (BQ) to assign international nonproprietary names to biosimilars.
The announcement was part of an October 2017 WHO publication, “Report on the Expert Consultation on Improving Access to and Use of Similar Biotherapeutic Products,” which covered a May 2017 meeting held in Geneva, Switzerland, to address concerns about improving access to, education about, and the use of biosimilars. The expert consultation was convened by WHO to gather stakeholder opinions regarding policy initiatives, technical requirements for manufacturing, regulatory support tools such as potential BQs, and building trust in biosimilars.
The October report noted that no consensus was reached during the meeting on whether WHO should move forward with the BQ; the system would have been similar to the system used by the FDA, which assigns biosimilars nonproprietary names that have non-meaningful 4-letter suffixes that distinguish them from originator or other biosimilar products. The Biosimilars Council, a trade group for biosimilar manufacturers, praised WHO’s announcement on Twitter, saying that then use of an added identifier for biosimilar drugs would act as an additional barrier to both patient access and cost savings.
At the May meeting, WHO decided to proceed with a separate project, a pilot concerning the prequalification (PQ) of 2 biosimilar cancer therapeutics—rituximab and trastuzumab. The aim of the project is to use 2 assessment pathways for biosimilar applicants: the first based on biosimilars with approvals from a Stringent Regulatory Authority (SRA), and the other a pathway for applicants approved by other national regulatory authorities. WHO will provide clear guidance to manufacturers wishing to apply for the pilot project.
The May meeting also addressed interchangeability of biosimilars with originator biologics, the complexities and diversities of nomenclature, and the principle of biosimilarity. Lessons learned and recent experiences with biosimilars were presented by representatives from Australia, Norway, India, and Brazil. The meeting also included presenters from the pharmaceutical industry, patient groups, and professional societies, who offered a wide range of perspectives on recurrent themes:
In addition to the announcement concerning the BQ and the pilot programs for rituximab and trastuzumab biosimilars, WHO concluded that the organization will review and provide clarification on the organization’s 2009 biosimilar guidelines to reflect technological and analytical advances and experience gained in the following years.
HHS Praises Biosimilars Savings but Opportunities to Reduce Part B Spending Remain
November 28th 2023Although biosimilars have already generated savings for Medicare Part B programs and beneficiaries, opportunities for substantial reductions in spending remain, according to a report from the HHS.
What AmerisourceBergen's Report Reveals About Payers, Biosimilar Pricing Trends
May 28th 2023On this episode of Not So Different, Tasmina Hydery and Brian Biehn from AmerisourceBergen discussed results from a recent survey, that were also presented at Asembia 2023, diving into the payer perspective on biosimilars and current pricing trends across the US biosimilar industry.
How Community Oncologists Can Break Down Biosimilar Adoption Barriers
March 19th 2023On this episode of Not So Different, Mark Guyot, senior director of unity provider engagement at McKesson, gives an overview of McKesson’s real-world analysis of community oncology practices and their use of biosimilars and offers advice on overcoming adoption barriers and expanding education efforts.
BioRationality: FDA Launches a New Opportunity to Remove Redundant Trials of Biosimilars
November 6th 2023The FDA introduced a plan to improve clinical trials, including a provision to possibly eliminate clinical efficacy testing for biologic products, which evidence has suggested may not be necessary, according to Sarfaraz K. Niazi, PhD.