Last week, Amgen and Allergan announced that the FDA will review data supporting the firms' Biologics License Application for ABP 215, a bevacizumab (Avastin) biosimilar candidate.
Last week, Amgen and Allergan announced that the FDA will review data supporting the firms’ Biologics License Application for ABP 215, a bevacizumab (Avastin) biosimilar candidate.
The FDA Advisory Committee will review the analytical, pharmacokinetic, and clinical data from studies on ABP 215, including the results of a phase 3 study that met its primary endpoint of demonstrating clinical equivalence to the reference product in patients undergoing treatment for non-squamous, non-small cell lung cancer. The study also demonstrated comparable safety and immunogenicity profiles for ABP 215 and the reference bevacizumab.
While Amgen and Allergan have said that they believe their product to be the first bevacizumab biosimilar submitted for consideration in the United States, the reference product’s manufacturer, Roche, sees competition brewing in Europe—the European Medicines Agency has confirmed that it is currently considering 2 applications for bevacizumab biosimilars.
Roche, in attempting to retain its hold on the $6.8 billion bevacizumab market, has asserted that its patent protection for bevacizumab extends until 2019. The firm filed a complaint in the US courts in response to Amgen and Allergan’s application, and seeks to bar the biosimilar product from the US market until the patent dispute has been resolved.
Roche’s argument hinges upon the so-called “patent dance” requirements as laid out in the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act. However, after this week’s Supreme Court ruling in Sandoz v Amgen, which held that the “patent dance” is optional, Roche may be forced to change its litigation approach.
Review Calls for Path to Global Harmonization of Biosimilar Development Regulations
March 17th 2025Global biosimilar regulatory harmonization will be needed to reduce development costs and improve patient access, despite challenges posed by differing national requirements and regulatory frameworks, according to review authors.
Will the FTC Be More PBM-Friendly Under a Second Trump Administration?
February 23rd 2025On this episode of Not So Different, we explore the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) second interim report on pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) with Joe Wisniewski from Turquoise Health, discussing key issues like preferential reimbursement, drug pricing transparency, biosimilars, shifting regulations, and how a second Trump administration could reshape PBM practices.
From Amjevita to Zarxio: A Decade of US Biosimilar Approvals
March 6th 2025Since the FDA’s groundbreaking approval of Zarxio in 2015, the US biosimilars market has surged to 67 approvals across 18 originators—though the journey has been anything but smooth, with adoption facing hurdles along the way.
A New Chapter: How 2023 Will Shape the US Biosimilar Space for 2024 and Beyond
December 31st 2023On this episode of Not So Different, Cencora's Brian Biehn and Corey Ford take a look back at major policy and regulatory advancements in 2023 and how these changes will alter the space going forward.
Biosimilar Approvals Streamlined With Advanced Statistics Amidst Differing Regulatory Requirements
February 25th 2025The FDA and European Medicines Agency (EMA) mandate high similarity between biosimilars and reference products, but their regulatory processes differ, especially with multiple reference products.