Last week, the FDA announced that it will withdraw a direct final rule that proposed to amend general biologics regulations related to time of inspection requirements and to remove some duties of inspector requirements. In its statement withdrawing the rule, the FDA indicated that it had received significant adverse comments related to its proposal.
Last week, the FDA announced that it will withdraw a direct final rule that proposed to amend general biologics regulations related to time of inspection requirements and to remove some duties of inspector requirements. In its statement withdrawing the rule, the FDA indicated that it had received significant adverse comments related to its proposal. The agency did not respond to questions from The Center for Biosimilars® about the nature of the adverse comment or comments that led to withdrawal of the rule.
The FDA had made the decision to issue the rule directly because the agency had believed it included “only noncontroversial amendments,” and the FDA anticipated no significant adverse comments that would affect its plan. The rule was intended to remove what it referred to as “outdated requirements” and to help eliminate inconsistencies and duplicative processes.
“These existing codified requirements are unnecessary because they are duplicative of statutory requirements that apply to biological product inspections under section 704 of the [Food, Drugs, & Cosmetics Act] FD&C Act. Specifically, the inspection requirements in section 704 of the FD&C Act encompass all requirements outlined in §600.22. Thus, we are removing §600.22(a) through (h),” said the agency of its rule.
In the past, the FDA required biennial inspections of drug and biological manufacturing facilities. However, when the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA) was introduced in 2012, the biennial inspection requirement was replaced with a risk-based schedule requirement for inspecting manufacturing plants.
“While this means the inspection frequency for some establishments will be reduced, for some facilities it may increase. We’ll continue to inspect facilities at the same standards and enforce the laws and regulations on manufacturing that help protect patients,” stated FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb of the rule.
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.