While the American College of Rheumatology praised the FDA for considering ways to reduce regulatory burden, the organization called on the FDA to focus on 6 “minimum components of review and oversight” for biosimilars.
The American College of Rheumatology (ACR) submitted a comment letter to the FDA on December 7, 2017, in response to the agency’s request for comments and information on existing requirements for biologics and biosimilars. The request followed President Trump’s Executive Order 13771 (“Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs”) as the FDA sought input on the ways in which it could modify existing regulations and related paperwork without compromising its public health mission.
While ACR praised the agency for considering opportunities to reduce regulatory burden, the organization called on the FDA to focus on 6 “minimum components of review and oversight” for biosimilars:
In an interview with The Center for Biosimilars®, Angus Worthing, MD, FACR, FACP, chair of ACR’s Government Affairs Committee, highlighted the reasons for the organization’s call for a budgetary authority; “The pipeline has several dozen candidate drugs, and there are many openings at FDA for people to evaluate [those products],” said Worthing. It is crucial to hire staff to fill these positions, and a guaranteed budget would “help to create some stability to hire the experts they need” to facilitate the timely approval of more biosimilars.
Another notable component of the ACR’s letter is its call for meaningful suffixes for biosimilars; like many organizations, ACR finds the FDA’s current practice of assigning non-meaningful suffixes potentially problematic, as many stakeholders find the suffixes difficult to remember.
“One potential reason that the FDA might have random suffixes right now might be to avoid attaching a specific manufacturer’s name to a product in case a product gets sold to a different company,” Worthing posited, but he noted that, “If you think about it, a connection between a company [and a product] might help incentivize that company to promote the drug’s safety and effectiveness and make sure that the drug works well for patients.” While the ACR does not have a strong position on what kind of meaningful suffix—whether manufacturer-specific or otherwise—is given to biosimilars, it supports the memorability of these designations to promote good pharmacovigilance.
Also key to pharmacovigilance, said Worthing, is ensuring that patients and providers are aware of how to report any adverse events related to their therapies, making sure that reporting structures are efficient and easy to use, and ensuring that the data collected are made available: “Once we get data coming in about adverse events, it’s important not to keep that data bottled up,” Worthing said.
Looking ahead, Worthing welcomes the eventual approval of interchangeable biosimilars as a way to promote the uptake of these cost-saving therapies.
“Unfortunately, despite the FDA doing good work and manufacturers providing data to the FDA, these drugs are not accessible right now. That gets us more excited to see approval of interchangeable drugs,” which will be substitutable at the pharmacy level as regulated by state law. “I think doctors will have a lot more confidence in biosimilars that are interchangeable,” said Worthing, “and that will improve the transition and improve treatment.”
How State Substitution Laws Shape Insulin Biosimilar Adoption
April 15th 2025States with fewer restrictions on biosimilar substitution tend to see higher uptake of interchangeable insulin glargine, showing how even small policy details can significantly influence biosimilar adoption and expand access to more affordable insulin.
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.
Experts Pressure Congress to Remove Roadblocks for Biosimilars
April 12th 2025Lawmakers and expert witnesses emphasized the potential of biosimilars to lower health care costs by overcoming barriers like pharmacy benefit manager practices, limited awareness, and regulatory delays to improve access and competition in chronic disease management during a recent congressional hearing.
Biosimilars Policy Roundup for September 2024—Podcast Edition
October 6th 2024On this episode of Not So Different, we discuss the FDA's approval of a new biosimilar for treating retinal conditions, which took place in September 2024 alongside other major industry developments, including ongoing legal disputes and broader trends in market dynamics and regulatory challenges.
BioRationality: Commemorating the 15th Anniversary of the BPCIA
April 8th 2025Affirming that analytical characterization is often sufficient for biosimilar approval, minimizing unnecessary clinical testing, and enhancing FDA-led education to counter stakeholder misconceptions are key recommendations put forth in this opinion piece by Sarfaraz K. Niazi, PhD.
Early Success of Adalimumab Biosimilars Featured at AMCP 2025
April 5th 2025High adherence rates, comparable clinical effectiveness, and cost savings have marked the early adoption of adalimumab biosimilars in the US, particularly in formulary-driven transitions, as shown in 2 retrospective studies presented at the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy annual meeting (AMCP 2025).