Sarafraz K. Niazi, PhD, previews the new year and his hopes for the end of clinical efficacy testing for biosimilar approvals using examples from history of other scientific concepts that took time to gain traction.
One of the best measures of the rise of science is the PubMed profile of peer-reviewed literature. The first mention of “biosimilarity” was made in 1977, but the text is unavailable. Since then, about 6,000 papers, more than half of them over the past 5 years, have discussed biosimilars. The first clinical trial of a biosimilar was reported in 2007 for growth hormone, and since then, 529 trials have been published, 470 being randomized controlled studies. Now, there are around 1500 review articles and systemic reviews. These gurus tell you what a biosimilar is and rarely present science ahead of their perceptions.
There are 852 clinical trials listed in clinicaltrials.gov, with 300 completed, 190 with results, and 118 with study protocols. Ninety-two thousand subjects were enrolled with a per capita cost of $55,000, leading to an approximate cost of over $5 billion. While this is still smaller than new biological drug development, the biosimilars do not get 12 years of exclusivity. Not surprising is the cost distribution, wherein more than two-thirds of the development cost goes to pay for efficacy trials, making this a significant roadblock for smaller companies entering the market.
I have written extensively on the issue of the redundancy of clinical trials and shared the extensive pharma views that continue to demand this testing as a talking point with prescribers without any risk of failure. It is difficult, as history tells us, to break a belief, mainly when the proposal is contrarian, but I also believe that eventually the scientific principles prevail. Here are a few examples to entertain you:
Ignaz Semmelweis, an obstetrician in 1847, showed that hand washing dramatically reduced mortality in childbirth. Despite this, his ideas were dismissed, and he was tragically institutionalized, dying in an asylum in 1865. His hand-washing practices were not adopted until after his death.
Aristarchus of Samos, in Ancient Greece, proposed a heliocentric solar system around 310 BC, suggesting that Earth and other planets orbit the sun. His ideas were ignored, and Nicolaus Copernicus’ theory reconsidering it wouldn’t be published for another 1800 years.
Gregor Mendel, a monk, established the foundation of genetics in the 19th century. His work on heredity was only recognized 16 years after his death and 34 years after his initial publication.
Lastly, Amedeo Avogadro's hypothesis, now known as Avogadro's Law, proposed that equal volumes of gases contain an equal number of molecules as long as they are under the same temperature and pressure conditions. His hypothesis was initially rejected but gained acceptance by 1870, long after his death.
Before I die, I hope we will come to grips with the reality that testing biosimilars for efficacy testing is just as futile as trying to understand quantum physics, at least for me.
Boosting Health Care Sustainability: The Role of Biosimilars in Latin America
November 21st 2024Biosimilars could improve access to biologic treatments and health care sustainability in Latin America, but their adoption is hindered by misconceptions, regulatory gaps, and weak pharmacovigilance, requiring targeted education and stronger regulations.
Biosimilars Development Roundup for October 2024—Podcast Edition
November 3rd 2024On this episode of Not So Different, we discuss the GRx+Biosims conference, which included discussions on data transparency, artificial intelligence (AI), and collaboration to enhance the global supply chain for biosimilars and generic drugs, as well as the evolving requirements for biosimilar devices.
Breaking Down Biosimilar Barriers: Interchangeability
November 14th 2024Part 3 of this series for Global Biosimilars Week, penned by Dracey Poore, director of biosimilars at Cardinal Health, explores the critical topic of interchangeability, examining its role in shaping biosimilar adoption and the broader implications for accessibility.
Exploring the Biosimilar Horizon: Julie Reed's Predictions for 2024
February 18th 2024On this episode of Not So Different, Julie Reed, executive director of the Biosimilars Forum, returns to discuss her predictions for the biosimilar industry for 2024 and beyond as well as the impact that the Forum's 4 new members will have on the organization's mission.
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.
Panelists Stress Stakeholder Education to Build Confidence in Biosimilars
October 31st 2024By expanding educational initiatives to clarify biosimilar safety, efficacy, and interchangeability, stakeholders can foster trust, improve access, and ensure that biosimilars are widely accepted as high-quality, cost-effective alternatives to originator biologics.