Biotherapeutic products (BTPs), also known as biotherapeutic medicines,
contain structurally complex active substances produced by living organisms. Due to their complexity and method of manufacture BTPs require distinct regulatory approval standards relative to chemically-synthesized small molecule medicines. This is also relevant for licensing copied versions of a BTP, or similar biotherapeutic products (SBPs) made by a different manufacturer where regulatory concepts developed for generics should not have been applied. In all these licensing scenarios regulators need to evaluate the results of comparability exercises, including sensitive head-to-head analytical, pre-clinical and clinical comparisons with the original product as a basis for approval.
SBPs do not contain chemically identical active substances, and may have slightly different benefit-risk profiles, therefore it is necessary to monitor post-approval safety on a product-specific basis. Policymakers may therefore emphasize the need for product-specific identification in patient records and safety reports using either a unique trade name or a distinguishable non-proprietary naming system. The unique nature of BTPs also informs the nature and degree of interchangeability between the originator and SBPs versions. Many policymakers also emphasize that switching between SBPs should only occur with the involvement of the prescriber. It is recommended that pharmacy substitution would only be appropriate when there is a robust framework for a competent authority to assess product-specific evidence of interchangeability. Another challenge is posed by the historical existence in some jurisdictions of copy BTPs that were not assessed according to current regulatory standards. To address this situation the World Health Organization has proposed a regulatory assessment framework wherein the status of such products can be normalized via the orderly submission and review of supplementary data.
US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (1996) Demonstration of Comparability of Human Biological Products, Including Therapeutic Biotechnology-derived Products.
7.
European Medicines Agency (EMA) (2003) Guideline on Comparability of Medicinal Products Containing Biotechnology-derived Proteins as Active Substance: Quality Issues.
8.
ICH Q5E (2005) Comparability of Biotechnological/Biological Products Subject to Changes in Their Manufacturing Process.
9.
RamananS. and RamppG.G., Drift, evolution, and divergence in biologics and biosimilars manufacturing, BioDrugs28 (2014), 363-372.
SteinmanM. et al., What's in a Name? Use of Brand versus Generic Drug Names in United States Outpatient Practice, J. Gen. Intern. Med.22 (2007), 645-648.
12.
KwoE. et al., Physician Use of Brand Versus Generic Drug Names in 1993-1994 and 2003-2004, Ann. Pharmacother43 (2009), 459-468.
Council Directive 2001/83/EC, art. 1(20), 2001 O.J. (L 311) 67, 73 (as amended by Council Directive 2004/27/EC) (noting that the name of a medicinal product “may be either an invented name not liable to confusion with the common name, or a common name or scientific name accompanied by a trade mark or the name of the marketing authorization holder”).
16.
Council Directive 2010/84/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 Dec. 2010 Amending, as Regards Pharmacovigilance, Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community Code Relating to Medicinal Products for Human Use, 2010 O.J. (L 348) 74, 84 (“The Member States shall: (e) ensure […] that all appropriate measures are taken to identify clearly any biological medicinal product prescribed, dispensed, or sold in their territory … with due regard to the name of the medicinal product.”).
KleinK. et al., Traceability of biologics in the netherlands: an analysis of information-recording systems in clinical practice and spontaneous ADR reports, Drug Saf39(2) (2016), 185-192.
19.
StergiopoulosS. et al., Identifying and quantifying the accuracy of product name attribution of US-sourced adverse event reports in MedWatch of somatropins and insulins, Ther Innov Regul Sci9(5) (2015), 706-716.
20.
VermeerN.S. et al., Traceability of biopharmaceuticals in spontaneous reporting systems: a cross-sectional study in the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) and EudraVigilance databases, Drug Saf36(8) (2013), 617-625.
21.
PraditpornsilpaK. et al., Biosimilar recombinant human erythropoietin induces the production of neutralizing antibodies, Kidney Intl80 (2011), 88-92.
World Health Organization (WHO) (2012) 55th Consultation on International Nonproprietary Names for Pharmaceutical Substances: Executive Summary, 3 (16-18 Oct. 2012), http://www.who.int/medicines/services/inn/55th_Executive_Summary.pdf. “Non-glycosylated biosimilars are considered to have highly similar post-translational modifications and receive the same INN, whilst those that are glycosylated are considered comparable but distinct; they get the same INN name but are further qualified by a Greek letter suffix.”
World Health Organization (WHO) (2013) Guidelines on the Quality, Safety, and Efficacy of Biotherapeutic Protein Products Prepared by Recombinant DNA Technology, Replacement of Annex 3 of WHO Technical Report Series, No. 814.
42.
ShellekensH., Biosimilar therapeutics: What do we need to consider?NDT Plus2(Suppl 1) (2009), i27-i36.
43.
World Health Organization (WHO) (2015) Guidelines on Regulatory Assessment of Approved rDNA-derived Biotherapeutics, PROPOSED ADDENDUM TO: WHO TRS 987, Annex 4.
44.
International Pharmaceutical Regulators Forum (IPRF) IPRF - PASIB TEMPLATE (2016) Public Assessment Summary Information for Biosimilar.
45.
SchofieldI., Web issue Scrip Regulatory Affairs, (07.04.2016): IPRF Suggests Global Template for Sharing Biosimilar Assessment Data.
