Gary Lyman, MD, MPH, an oncologist and hematologist, explains that biosimilar substitution in the absence of interchangeability designations is widespread and not without clinical merit.
Gary Lyman, MD, MPH, is an oncologist, hematologist, and public health researcher who has long been an advocate for biosimilars. He has also developed guidelines in support of using biosimilars in the oncology space.
Transcript:
Is the interchangeable designation actually meaningful and necessary?
Lyman: So, as I often mention, the United States is the only country that has a designation of interchangeability. Globally, this would have very little impact in meaning. I think the reason is that interchanging [of these agents] is driven by the originator's safety and efficacy data and acceptance by the professional oncology organizations. Just showing that you can switch from one to the other, once you've already said that the agent is safe and effective as the originator, I think there's been very little question raised. There still is a little bit of hesitancy, in general, about changing products in the middle of a course of treatment. So, if a patient has started adjuvant therapy with a biosimilar and has been told that they have to use a different one to complete their therapy, it just doesn't sit real well with clinicians. Why should they be forced to switch a product that seems to be working fine and the patient is tolerating well just because it's a little less expensive or they're being told [to do so] by their institution?
So, there is some pushback, and with regard to that, but in general, interchanging of these agents is already taking place. No biosimilar has been removed from the marketplace, either in Europe or in the United States, even globally, that I'm aware of, because of concerns over adverse events or loss of efficacy by changing from one agent to the other. So, and as I've said, many times, even the reference product that we prescribe of a biologic, the originator drug, is not the same drug today as it was 20 years ago. So, it's, in a sense, a biosimilar of itself sitting on the shelf right now. Saying that we can't switch or shouldn't switch because of cost or regional concerns just doesn't hold up very strongly in my mind. I think that pushback on this issue, while I understand it and the gut feeling of why change? When something's working don't fix it. I'm not concerned about the safety and efficacy of doing that.
Empowering Vulnerable Populations: The Path to Equitable Biologic Therapy Access
December 22nd 2024Elie Bahou, PharmD, senior vice president and system chief pharmacy officer at Providence, discusses strategies to improve equitable access to biologic therapies, including tiered formularies, income-based cost sharing, patient assistance programs, and fostering payer partnerships.
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.
Review Confirms Clinical Safety of Sandoz Denosumab Biosimilar vs Originator
December 11th 2024Sandoz's biosimilar denosumab (Jubbonti/Wyost) has demonstrated analytical, pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, and clinical equivalence to reference denosumab (Prolia/Xgeva), supporting its approval and extrapolation to all approved indications.
BioRationality: Withdrawal of Proposed Terminal Disclaimer Rule Spells Major Setback for Biosimilars
December 10th 2024The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)’s withdrawal of its proposed terminal disclaimer rule is seen as a setback for biosimilar developers, as it preserves patent prosecution practices that favor originator companies and increases costs for biosimilar competition, according to Sarfaraz K. Niazi, PhD.