The FDA draft guidance, issued in January 2017, is the first recommendation the FDA has issued on interchangeability. It provides detailed information about demonstrating the interchangeability of a biosimilar product with a reference biological product, including the type and amount of data and information needed to support a demonstration of interchangeability, the design and analysis of switching studies, the use of US-licensed reference products in switching studies, and considerations for developing presentations, container closure systems, and delivery device constituent parts for the proposed interchangeable product.
It is likely that the FDA draft guidance been issued now in response to the number of biosimilar products that are currently in clinical development. The first biosimilar product was approved by the FDA in 2015, three more were approved in 2016 and there are currently many applications being reviewed by the FDA.
The full market potential for biosimilar products has not yet been realised because of the lack of interchangeability and lingering uncertainties about efficacy and safety among both health care providers and patients when switching from an original reference product to a biosimilar product. More defined requirements in the FDA Guidance provide clarity for pharma and pave the way for more development.
The importance of Interchangeability
In theory, once the biosimilar product is deemed ‘interchangeable’, it can be automatically substituted for the prescribed biological product by the pharmacist without the consent of the prescribing physician. The concept of interchangeability designation is unique to the US and FDA. The FDA has approved 4 biosimilars since 2015. To date however, the FDA has not designated any of the four approved biosimilar products as interchangeable.
Health care providers need more data to demonstrate that the efficacy and safety of a biosimilar product is similar to that of the reference biological product so that they can be sure that when they prescribe it, the effects will be similar to the reference product. In particular, because biological products are large complex molecules, they can be very antigenic compounds that elicit antibody responses. The potential production of antibodies is a cause for concern regarding the safety and efficacy of a biosimilar product.
Regulators require that data and information is provided to show that a proposed interchangeable product can be expected to produce the same clinical result as the reference product. This should include but is not limited to, for example, identification and analysis of the critical quality attributes, analysis of mechanism(s) of action, pharmacokinetics, biodistribution and immunogenicity risk of the product in different patient populations.
The designation of a biosimilar as an interchangeable product is important as it will not only provide this reassurance but also the opportunity for the full market potential for biosimilar products to be realised.
Switching studies
For biosimilars requiring multiple administration, switching studies should be designed to determine whether alternating between a biosimilar and the reference biological product two or more times, has an impact on safety or efficacy. The FDA recommends that sponsors conducting switching studies should use a US-licensed reference product because “Rather than being used only as a control, the comparator product is used in a switching study in both the active switching arm and the control non-switching arm” and subtle differences between biological products licensed in different countries or regions could affect patients’ immune responses.
Any differences could create uncertainty as to whether the results of a switching study using a non-US-licensed reference product would be applicable to a US-licensed reference product.
For more information on regulatory development please contact us today to set up a consultation.
In this section
-
Digital Disruption
-
Clinical strategies to optimise SaMD for treating mental health
-
Digital Disruption: Surveying the industry's evolving landscape
- AI and clinical trials
-
Clinical trial data anonymisation and data sharing
-
Clinical Trial Tokenisation
-
Closing the evidence gap: The value of digital health technologies in supporting drug reimbursement decisions
-
Digital disruption in biopharma
-
Disruptive Innovation
- Remote Patient Monitoring
-
Personalising Digital Health
- Real World Data
-
The triad of trust: Navigating real-world healthcare data integration
-
Clinical strategies to optimise SaMD for treating mental health
-
Patient Centricity
-
Agile Clinical Monitoring
-
Capturing the voice of the patient in clinical trials
-
Charting the Managed Access Program Landscape
-
Developing Nurse-Centric Medical Communications
- Diversity and inclusion in clinical trials
-
Exploring the patient perspective from different angles
-
Patient safety and pharmacovigilance
-
A guide to safety data migrations
-
Taking safety reporting to the next level with automation
-
Outsourced Pharmacovigilance Affiliate Solution
-
The evolution of the Pharmacovigilance System Master File: Benefits, challenges, and opportunities
-
Sponsor and CRO pharmacovigilance and safety alliances
-
Understanding the Periodic Benefit-Risk Evaluation Report
-
A guide to safety data migrations
-
Patient voice survey
-
Patient Voice Survey - Decentralised and Hybrid Trials
-
Reimagining Patient-Centricity with the Internet of Medical Things (IoMT)
-
Using longitudinal qualitative research to capture the patient voice
-
Agile Clinical Monitoring
-
Regulatory Intelligence
-
An innovative approach to rare disease clinical development
- EU Clinical Trials Regulation
-
Using innovative tools and lean writing processes to accelerate regulatory document writing
-
Current overview of data sharing within clinical trial transparency
-
Global Agency Meetings: A collaborative approach to drug development
-
Keeping the end in mind: key considerations for creating plain language summaries
-
Navigating orphan drug development from early phase to marketing authorisation
-
Procedural and regulatory know-how for China biotechs in the EU
-
RACE for Children Act
-
Early engagement and regulatory considerations for biotech
-
Regulatory Intelligence Newsletter
-
Requirements & strategy considerations within clinical trial transparency
-
Spotlight on regulatory reforms in China
-
Demystifying EU CTR, MDR and IVDR
-
Transfer of marketing authorisation
-
An innovative approach to rare disease clinical development
-
Therapeutics insights
- Endocrine and Metabolic Disorders
- Cardiovascular
- Cell and Gene Therapies
- Central Nervous System
-
Glycomics
- Infectious Diseases
- NASH
- Oncology
- Paediatrics
-
Respiratory
-
Rare and orphan diseases
-
Advanced therapies for rare diseases
-
Cross-border enrollment of rare disease patients
-
Crossing the finish line: Why effective participation support strategy is critical to trial efficiency and success in rare diseases
-
Diversity, equity and inclusion in rare disease clinical trials
-
Identify and mitigate risks to rare disease clinical programmes
-
Leveraging historical data for use in rare disease trials
-
Natural history studies to improve drug development in rare diseases
-
Patient Centricity in Orphan Drug Development
-
The key to remarkable rare disease registries
-
Therapeutic spotlight: Precision medicine considerations in rare diseases
-
Advanced therapies for rare diseases
-
Transforming Trials
-
Accelerating biotech innovation from discovery to commercialisation
-
Ensuring the validity of clinical outcomes assessment (COA) data: The value of rater training
-
Linguistic validation of Clinical Outcomes Assessments
-
Optimising biotech funding
- Adaptive clinical trials
-
Best practices to increase engagement with medical and scientific poster content
-
Decentralised clinical trials
-
Biopharma perspective: the promise of decentralised models and diversity in clinical trials
-
Decentralised and Hybrid clinical trials
-
Practical considerations in transitioning to hybrid or decentralised clinical trials
-
Navigating the regulatory labyrinth of technology in decentralised clinical trials
-
Biopharma perspective: the promise of decentralised models and diversity in clinical trials
-
eCOA implementation
- Blended solutions insights
-
Implications of COVID-19 on statistical design and analyses of clinical studies
-
Improving pharma R&D efficiency
-
Increasing Complexity and Declining ROI in Drug Development
-
Innovation in Clinical Trial Methodologies
- Partnership insights
-
Risk Based Quality Management
-
Transforming the R&D Model to Sustain Growth
-
Accelerating biotech innovation from discovery to commercialisation
-
Value Based Healthcare
-
Strategies for commercialising oncology treatments for young adults
-
US payers and PROs
-
Accelerated early clinical manufacturing
-
Cardiovascular Medical Devices
-
CMS Part D Price Negotiations: Is your drug on the list?
-
COVID-19 navigating global market access
-
Ensuring scientific rigor in external control arms
-
Evidence Synthesis: A solution to sparse evidence, heterogeneous studies, and disconnected networks
-
Global Outcomes Benchmarking
-
Health technology assessment
-
Perspectives from US payers
-
ICER’s impact on payer decision making
-
Making Sense of the Biosimilars Market
-
Medical communications in early phase product development
-
Navigating the Challenges and Opportunities of Value Based Healthcare
-
Payer Reliance on ICER and Perceptions on Value Based Pricing
-
Payers Perspectives on Digital Therapeutics
-
Precision Medicine
-
RWE Generation Cross Sectional Studies and Medical Chart Review
-
Survey results: How to engage healthcare decision-makers
-
The affordability hurdle for gene therapies
-
The Role of ICER as an HTA Organisation
-
Strategies for commercialising oncology treatments for young adults
-
Blog
-
Videos
-
Webinar Channel