Eleonora Allocati1, Vittorio Bertele'2, Chiara Gerardi2, Silvio Garattini2, Rita Banzi2. 1. Center for Health Regulatory Policies, Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri IRCCS, Via Mario Negri 2, 20156, Milan, Italy. eleonora.allocati@marionegri.it. 2. Center for Health Regulatory Policies, Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri IRCCS, Via Mario Negri 2, 20156, Milan, Italy.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To review the marketing authorization of biosimilars and provide a critical analysis of the pivotal trials supporting their approval by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). METHODS: EMA website to identify the biosimilars approved up to July 2019 and the European Public Assessment Report for information on pivotal trial design, duration, intervention and control, primary outcome, data on immunogenicity, and comparability margins. RESULTS: The EMA has approved 55 biosimilars (62% in 2017-2019) of 16 biologic products, used in several clinical indications. Some biosimilars were licensed as multiple products, with different commercial names, by the same or different companies. The comparability exercise and subsequent approval of 49/55 (89%) biosimilars were based on one or more pivotal phase III trials testing their clinical efficacy. In all, biosimilars were approved on the basis of 55 trials, mostly phase III (42/55, 76%) assessing clinical efficacy; these were mainly equivalence trials (31/55, 56%). The pivotal phase III trials assessed surrogate measures of clinical effect, and 71% reported immunogenicity data. CONCLUSION: Analysis of the approval of biosimilars in Europe depicts a complex and heterogeneous scenario. The requirement for showing similarity in terms of clinical efficacy and safety provides a robust demonstration of comparable clinical outcomes but lays a burden on biosimilar manufacturers and may delay the introduction of the drugs. The development, licensing, and monitoring of biosimilars would benefit from new strategies to accelerate access to these drugs while reducing uncertainties about their use in practice.
PURPOSE: To review the marketing authorization of biosimilars and provide a critical analysis of the pivotal trials supporting their approval by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). METHODS: EMA website to identify the biosimilars approved up to July 2019 and the European Public Assessment Report for information on pivotal trial design, duration, intervention and control, primary outcome, data on immunogenicity, and comparability margins. RESULTS: The EMA has approved 55 biosimilars (62% in 2017-2019) of 16 biologic products, used in several clinical indications. Some biosimilars were licensed as multiple products, with different commercial names, by the same or different companies. The comparability exercise and subsequent approval of 49/55 (89%) biosimilars were based on one or more pivotal phase III trials testing their clinical efficacy. In all, biosimilars were approved on the basis of 55 trials, mostly phase III (42/55, 76%) assessing clinical efficacy; these were mainly equivalence trials (31/55, 56%). The pivotal phase III trials assessed surrogate measures of clinical effect, and 71% reported immunogenicity data. CONCLUSION: Analysis of the approval of biosimilars in Europe depicts a complex and heterogeneous scenario. The requirement for showing similarity in terms of clinical efficacy and safety provides a robust demonstration of comparable clinical outcomes but lays a burden on biosimilar manufacturers and may delay the introduction of the drugs. The development, licensing, and monitoring of biosimilars would benefit from new strategies to accelerate access to these drugs while reducing uncertainties about their use in practice.
Keywords:
Biosimilar; Clinical trials; Comparability exercise; Drug regulation; European Medicines Agency
Authors: Evelien Moorkens; Arnold G Vulto; Isabelle Huys; Pieter Dylst; Brian Godman; Simon Keuerleber; Barbara Claus; Maria Dimitrova; Guenka Petrova; Ljiljana Sović-Brkičić; Juraj Slabý; Robin Šebesta; Ott Laius; Allan Karr; Morgane Beck; Jaana E Martikainen; Gisbert W Selke; Susan Spillane; Laura McCullagh; Gianluca Trifirò; Patricia Vella Bonanno; Asbjørn Mack; Antra Fogele; Anita Viksna; Magdalena Władysiuk; Helder Mota-Filipe; Dmitry Meshkov; Marija Kalaba; Simona Mencej Bedrač; Jurij Fürst; Corrine Zara; Peter Skiöld; Einar Magnússon; Steven Simoens Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-12-28 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Hillel P Cohen; Andrew Blauvelt; Robert M Rifkin; Silvio Danese; Sameer B Gokhale; Gillian Woollett Journal: Drugs Date: 2018-03 Impact factor: 9.546
Authors: Louise C Druedahl; Sofia Kälvemark Sporrong; Marco van de Weert; Marie Louise De Bruin; Hans Hoogland; Timo Minssen; Anna Birna Almarsdóttir Journal: BioDrugs Date: 2021-04-08 Impact factor: 5.807
Authors: Bruna O Ascef; Matheus O Almeida; Ana Cristina de Medeiros Ribeiro; Danieli C O Andrade; Haliton A de Oliveira Júnior; Tiago V Pereira; Patrícia C de Soárez Journal: Syst Rev Date: 2021-07-17