The FDA's updated guidance on the naming of biologics, biosimilars, and interchangeable products has caused deep concern among some proponents of biosimilars, and one stakeholder has now filed a citizen petition with the FDA in which he asks that the guidance be withdrawn.
Earlier this month, the FDA released updated draft guidance on the naming of biologics, biosimilars, and interchangeable biosimilars. The guidance holds that newly approved biologics, biosimilars, and interchangeable products will be assigned 4-letter suffixes, devoid of meaning, but it explains that the FDA no longer intends to require already approved products, including transition products, have such suffixes. The guidance caused deep concern among some proponents of biosimilars, and one stakeholder has now filed a citizen petition with the FDA in which he asks that the guidance be withdrawn.
Sarfaraz K. Niazi, PhD, adjunct professor of biopharmaceutical sciences at the University of Illinois and the University of Houston, and founder of biosimilars companies Karyo Biologics and Adello Biologics, as well as the advisory company PharmSci, filed the petition on March 9, 2019. In the petition, he asks that the agency modify its position to state that no suffixes are required for any biologic products and instead state that brand names can be used along with National Drug Codes (NDCs).
In an interview with The Center for Biosimilars®, Niazi explained that “If you look at the labels [of biosimilars and their reference products] side by side, there is no possibility of any pharmacovigilance or traceability issue, and it has never been an issue.” He added that, for patients and prescribers, the presence of a suffix inappropriately suggests that there is a meaningful difference between the originator and the biosimilar. “In the minds of people, if you’re Mr. Johnson the third, you’re not Mr. Johnson the second,” he said.
When asked to respond to the FDA’s stated concern, expressed by FDA Commissioner Scott Gottleib, MD, that requiring already approved biologics to carry suffixes would be a costly undertaking, Niazi agreed that there would be substantial costs to innovator drug makers, from printing costs for labels to CMS coding considerations. However, he said, “there is no cost that is prohibitive to companies like Amgen.” According to Niazi, the FDA has long held that it makes its decisions on the basis of science, not cost to drug makers, a fact that makes concerns about these costs questionable.
Using suffixes for biosimilar products would be reasonable if suffixes served a purpose that could not be equally well served by using the brand names or NDCs for products, but the guidance served no purpose but to create a challenge for biosimilar acceptance and adoption, said Niazi.
Niazi’s citizen petition also asks that the FDA change its terminology used to describe biosimilars from having “no clinically meaningful differences” from the reference product to saying that products are “clinically similar.” Such a change, he said, would avoid confusion, and would keep reference product sponsors from capitalizing on potential ambiguity as a way to cast doubt on the safety and efficacy of biosimilars.
Finally, Niazi’s petition asks the FDA to warn biosimilar developers not to imply that their biosimilars are superior to other biosimilars, and to warn reference product sponsors against suggesting that the FDA is not competent to judge the safety and efficacy of these products.
The FDA has 180 days from the document’s March 14 acceptance to approve, deny, dismiss, or issue a tentative response to the petition.
Eye on Pharma: EU Aflibercept Approvals; Biosimilars Canada Campaign; Celltrion Data
November 19th 2024The European Commission grants marketing authorization to 2 aflibercept biosimilars; Biosimilars Canada launches new campaign to provide sustainable solutions to employers; Celltrion shares positive data for 2 biosimilars.
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.
BioRationality: Should mRNA Copies Be Filed as NDAs or Biosimilars?
November 4th 2024The article by Sarfaraz K. Niazi, PhD, argues that the FDA’s classification of future copies of messenger RNA (mRNA) products could be reconsidered, suggesting they might be eligible for new drug applications (NDAs) or a hybrid biosimilar category due to their unique characteristics and increasing prevalence.
The Subcutaneous Revolution: Zymfentra and the Future of IBD Care With Dr Andres Yarur
December 17th 2023On this episode of Not So Different, Andres Yarur, MD, a researcher and associate professor of medicine at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, discusses the significance of the FDA approval for Zymfentra, the world's first subcutaneous infliximab product, for patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).
Strengthening the Supply Chain: Key Insights From FDA Commissioner Dr Robert Califf
October 25th 2024At the GRx+Biosims conference, FDA Commissioner Robert Califf, MD, stressed the urgent need for data transparency in the global supply chain and the role of collaboration and artificial intelligence in ensuring the resilience of biosimilar and generic drug production.
FDA and Industry Experts Unpack Biosimilar Device Requirements
October 23rd 2024At the GRx+Biosims 2024 conference, a panel of industry experts and FDA officials discussed evolving device requirements for biosimilars and interchangeable biosimilars, highlighting new approaches to comparative use human factors studies, regulatory challenges, and alternative validation methods.