Up­dat­ed: In­ter­change­able biosim­i­lars: FDA fi­nal­izes guid­ance

The FDA on Fri­day fi­nal­ized a long-await­ed guid­ance spelling out how biosim­i­lars can achieve an in­ter­change­able sta­tus, which means they may be sub­sti­tut­ed for the ref­er­ence bi­o­log­ic with­out a pre­scriber in­ter­ven­ing.

No in­ter­change­able biosim­i­lars have been ap­proved in the US yet, and the num­ber of com­pa­nies seek­ing ap­proval for an in­ter­change­able has re­mained at just one, with Boehringer In­gel­heim pub­licly dis­clos­ing that it’s be­gun an in­ter­change­abil­i­ty study for its adal­i­mum­ab (Hu­mi­ra) biosim­i­lar.

But for­mer FDA Com­mis­sion­er Scott Got­tlieb said last month that in­ter­change­able in­sulin prod­ucts are like­ly com­ing to the US in the next cou­ple of years. And fi­nal in­ter­change­abil­i­ty guid­ance will pro­vide spon­sors with more cer­tain­ty on how to de­vel­op in­ter­change­able prod­ucts.

Changes in Fi­nal Guid­ance

The fi­nal guid­ance is sev­en pages short­er than the draft and does not in­clude two ap­pen­dices that were in­clud­ed in the draft on com­par­a­tive use hu­man fac­tors stud­ies.

Com­menters on the draft took is­sue with terms that need­ed fur­ther clar­i­ty, such as “resid­ual un­cer­tain­ty” and “fin­ger­print-like,” which is used in the draft to de­scribe the sim­i­lar­i­ty be­tween the pro­posed in­ter­change­able prod­uct and the ref­er­ence prod­uct.

The fi­nal guid­ance, how­ev­er, no longer us­es the term “fin­ger­print-like” and where­as the draft in­cludes al­most 20 ref­er­ences to “resid­ual un­cer­tain­ty,” the fi­nal guid­ance in­cludes on­ly one. “The agency al­so con­sid­ered the nu­mer­ous com­ments on the draft in­ter­change­abil­i­ty guid­ance and made changes to pro­vide in­creased clar­i­ty to stake­hold­ers,” Act­ing Com­mis­sion­er Ned Sharp­less said.

Chris­tine Sim­mon

Chris­tine Sim­mon, ex­ec­u­tive di­rec­tor of the Biosim­i­lars Coun­cil, ap­plaud­ed the FDA’s “time­ly guid­ance on in­ter­change­abil­i­ty for biosim­i­lars, par­tic­u­lar­ly its stream­lined da­ta and study de­sign re­quire­ments that al­low flex­i­bil­i­ty and the use of glob­al com­para­tor prod­ucts to sup­port ap­pli­ca­tions.”

Com­pa­nies com­ment­ing on the draft al­so took is­sue with the re­quire­ment that they must use US-li­censed ref­er­ence prod­uct in a switch­ing study (or stud­ies). And the FDA has al­tered this re­quire­ment in the fi­nal guid­ance and re­named that sec­tion of the guid­ance.

“If a spon­sor seeks to use da­ta de­rived from a switch­ing study or stud­ies com­par­ing a pro­posed in­ter­change­able prod­uct with a non-U.S.-li­censed com­para­tor prod­uct as part of the demon­stra­tion that the pro­posed in­ter­change­able prod­uct meets the stan­dard de­scribed in sec­tion 351(k)(4)(B) of the PHS Act, the spon­sor should pro­vide ad­e­quate da­ta and in­for­ma­tion to es­tab­lish a ‘bridge’ be­tween the non-U.S.-li­censed com­para­tor and the U.S.-li­censed ref­er­ence prod­uct and there­by jus­ti­fy the rel­e­vance of the da­ta ob­tained us­ing the non-U.S.-li­censed com­para­tor to an eval­u­a­tion of whether the re­quire­ments of sec­tion 351(k)(4)(B) have been met,” the fi­nal guid­ance says, ex­plain­ing more about what the bridge would en­tail.

Oth­er­wise, most of the draft ver­sion was car­ried over in­to the fi­nal guid­ance, in­clud­ing the re­quire­ment that com­pa­nies use so-called “switch­ing stud­ies” to de­ter­mine whether al­ter­nat­ing be­tween a biosim­i­lar and its ref­er­ence prod­uct im­pacts the safe­ty or ef­fi­ca­cy of the treat­ment.

Bern­stein biotech an­a­lyst Ron­ny Gal added in a note to in­vestors: “The main added re­quire­ment is a 2-arm switch­ing tri­al where all pa­tients start on the ref­er­ence prod­uct. In one arm, the pa­tients will re­main on the ref­er­ence prod­uct through­out. On the oth­er, they will switch back and forth twice, end­ing on the biosim­i­lar prod­uct. Crit­i­cal­ly, the main com­par­i­son is on PK/PD mark­ers, not ef­fi­ca­cy mark­ers (which FDA con­sid­ers less sen­si­tive). This will ma­te­ri­al­ly low­er costs of do­ing these tri­als.”

He al­so said he ex­pects this guid­ance will en­able in­sulin in­ter­change­ables and al­low for in­ter­change­able ver­sions of “some of the eas­i­er an­ti­bod­ies to repli­cate like Eylea.”

Con­sid­er­a­tions in Demon­strat­ing In­ter­change­abil­i­ty With a Ref­er­ence Prod­uct: Guid­ance for In­dus­try

Ed­i­tor’s Note: Up­dat­ed with com­ment from Bern­stein’s Gal.


First pub­lished in Reg­u­la­to­ry Fo­cus™ by the Reg­u­la­to­ry Af­fairs Pro­fes­sion­als So­ci­ety, the largest glob­al or­ga­ni­za­tion of and for those in­volved with the reg­u­la­tion of health­care prod­ucts. Click here for more in­for­ma­tion.

Author

Zachary Brennan

managing editor, RAPS

Grow­ing ac­cep­tance of ac­cel­er­at­ed path­ways for nov­el treat­ments: but does reg­u­la­to­ry ap­proval lead to com­mer­cial suc­cess?

By Mwango Kashoki, MD, MPH, Vice President-Technical, and Richard Macaulay, Senior Director, of Parexel Regulatory & Access

In recent years, we’ve seen a significant uptake in the use of regulatory options by companies looking to accelerate the journey of life-saving drugs to market. In 2018, 73% of the novel drugs approved by the U.S. Federal Drug Administration (FDA) were designated under one or more expedited development program categories (Fast Track, Breakthrough Therapy, Priority Review, and Accelerated Approval).ᶦ

Take­da swoops in to buy lit­tle biotech part­ner and its celi­ac drug poised to 'change stan­dard of care'

Having spent three years carefully grooming PvP Biologics and its drug for celiac disease, Takeda is happy enough with the proof-of-concept data to buy it all.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 73,100+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Will a 'risk-of­f' mind­set has­ten cell ther­a­py M&A? Io­vance surges on buy­out chat­ter

Is it time for some cell therapy M&A?

Investors of Iovance Biotherapeutics certainly thought so, sending its stock $IOVA up as much as 40% after Bloomberg reported that the cancer-focused biotech is talking to potential buyers.

While 2019 saw a number of high-profile gene therapy company takeovers — led by Roche’s $4.3 billion bid of Spark as Astellas went for Audentes, Biogen snapped up Nightstar and Vertex absorbed Exonics — large players appeared to prefer partnering on the cell therapy front, particularly when it comes to cancer. Hal Barron put his weight behind Rick Klausner’s startup as he rebuilt GlaxoSmithKline’s cancer pipeline. Takeda turned to MD Anderson to license their natural killer cell therapy.

Bio­gen touts new ev­i­dence from the gene ther­a­py com­pa­ny it wa­gered $800M on

A year ago, Biogen made a big bet on a small gene therapy company. Now they have new evidence one of their therapies could work.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 73,100+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

One less ri­val for Im­muno­vant, as Alex­ion aban­dons FcRn in­hibitor

Less than one year after Alexion parted with $25 million upfront to secure access to a second anti-FcRn asset, it is abandoning the experimental drug. The discontinuation, disclosed at the SVB Leerink Global Healthcare Conference in New York during a fireside chat, bodes well for rival Immunovant.

The drug (ABY-039), partnered for development with Sweden’s Affibody, was forsaken on the basis of early-stage data that was not viewed favorably, Baird and SVB Leerink analysts noted.

Mi­cro­bio­me Q&A: New study maps the vagi­na's 'op­ti­mal mi­cro­bio­ta' — and its im­pli­ca­tions for bio­phar­ma

The widely-held notion that the “optimal” vaginal microbiota is dominated by one strain of lactic-acid producing bacteria has now been challenged in a new paper, published in Nature Communications on Wednesday, which used advanced gene sequencing methods to map out the most comprehensive gene catalog of the human vaginal microbiome.

Things have changed in the more than 50 years since the concept of vaginal microbiota transplants was proposed and subsequently tainted by a Texas-based gynecologist who transplanted the vaginal fluid of women who had bacterial vaginosis into healthy females, suspecting he had isolated the bacteria responsible for the condition.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 73,100+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Clin­i­cal tri­al spon­sors have to dis­close decade’s worth of un­re­leased da­ta, fed­er­al judge rules

A decade’s worth of unreleased trial data may soon see the light of day.

A New York federal judge ruled this week that the FDA and the NIH have for years misinterpreted a law that would require companies, universities and other clinical trial sponsors to release trial data from studies completed between 2007 and 2017. The ruling covers drugs and medical devices that were experimental when the study was completed but have since been approved, potentially putting hundreds of sponsors out of compliance if they don’t put their results on clinicaltrials.gov.

Laurie Glimcher and Ansbert Gadicke (Justin Knight, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute)

Ty­ing ba­sic sci­ence to spin­outs, Dana-Far­ber de­buts sis­ter funds to­tal­ing $126M with MPM Cap­i­tal

As one of the most prestigious cancer institutes in the US, Dana-Farber has enjoyed considerable support for its entrepreneurial pursuits, spinning out about 30 companies in the past 12 years.

“Now where we’ve always struggled — where every cancer center struggled — is support of basic science,” Barrett Rollins, chief scientific officer emeritus, told Endpoints News.

And then two of its trustees had an idea. What if they tied philanthropy to investment in Dana-Farber startups, requiring a donation to basic science as a condition for accessing its brightest biotech venture ideas?

FDA mon­i­tor­ing 20 drugs at risk of short­age due to Coro­n­avirus

As part of its efforts to ensure the supply of medical products from China during the ongoing coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak, the FDA has identified 20 drugs that are made in or produced solely from active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) sourced from China.

In a statement to Focus, FDA spokesperson Stephanie Caccomo said the agency has been in contact with the companies that make the 20 products and that “none of these firms has reported any shortage to date.”