Literature DB >> 33271114

Improving oncology biosimilar launches in the EU, the USA, and Japan: an updated Policy Review from the Southern Network on Adverse Reactions.

Charles L Bennett1, Martin W Schoen2, Shamia Hoque3, Bartlett J Witherspoon4, David M Aboulafia5, Catherine S Hwang5, Paul Ray4, Paul R Yarnold4, Brian K Chen6, Benjamin Schooley7, Matthew A Taylor8, Michael D Wyatt4, William J Hrushesky4, Y Tony Yang9.   

Abstract

The EU, the USA, and Japan account for the majority of biological pharmacotherapy use worldwide. Biosimilar regulatory approval pathways were authorised in the EU (2006), in Japan (2009), and in the USA (2015), to facilitate approval of biological drugs that are highly similar to reference products and to encourage market competition. Between 2007 and 2020, 33 biosimilars for oncology were approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), 16 by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and ten by the Japan Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA). Some of these approved applications were initially rejected because of manufacturing concerns (four of 36 [11%] with the EMA, seven of 16 [44%] with the FDA, none of ten for the PMDA). Median times from initial regulatory submission before approval of oncology biosimilars were 1·5 years (EMA), 1·3 years (FDA), and 0·9 years (PMDA). Pharmacists can substitute biosimilars for reference biologics in some EU countries, but not in the USA or Japan. US regulation prohibits substitution, unless the biosimilar has been approved as interchangeable, a designation not yet achieved for any biosimilar in the USA. Japan does not permit biosimilar substitution, as prescribers must include the product name on each prescription and that specific product must be given to the patient. Policy Reviews published in 2014 and 2016 in The Lancet Oncology focused on premarket and postmarket policies for oncology biosimilars before most of these drugs received regulatory approval. In this Policy Review from the Southern Network on Adverse Reactions, we identify factors preventing the effective launch of oncology biosimilars. Introduction to the market has been more challenging with therapeutic than for supportive care oncology biosimilars. Addressing region-specific competition barriers and educational needs would improve the regulatory approval process and market launches for these biologics, therefore expanding patient access to these products in the EU, the USA, and Japan.
Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Year:  2020        PMID: 33271114     DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30485-X

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Lancet Oncol        ISSN: 1470-2045            Impact factor:   41.316


  3 in total

1.  The in-vitro effect of famotidine on sars-cov-2 proteases and virus replication.

Authors:  Madeline Loffredo; Hector Lucero; Da-Yuan Chen; Aoife O'Connell; Simon Bergqvist; Ahmad Munawar; Asanga Bandara; Steff De Graef; Stephen D Weeks; Florian Douam; Mohsan Saeed; Ali H Munawar
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-03-08       Impact factor: 4.379

2.  COVID-19-related mortality in cancer patients in an Irish setting.

Authors:  Anna Linehan; Orla Fitzpatrick; Darren Cowzer; Maeve A Hennessy; Zac L Coyne; Amy Nolan; Maeve Clarke; Roisin Ni Dhonaill; Bryan T Hennessy; Patrick G Morris; Liam Grogan; Oscar Breathnach
Journal:  Ir J Med Sci       Date:  2021-10-25       Impact factor: 2.089

3.  Switching from One Biosimilar to Another Biosimilar of the Same Reference Biologic: A Systematic Review of Studies.

Authors:  Hillel P Cohen; Sohaib Hachaichi; Wolfram Bodenmueller; Tore K Kvien; Silvio Danese; Andrew Blauvelt
Journal:  BioDrugs       Date:  2022-07-26       Impact factor: 7.744

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.