Hope S. Rugo, MD: Interchangeability is an interesting area. Extrapolation is much easier because that means that you’ve got a biosimilar that was approved in the neoadjuvant or metastatic setting and can use it, alternatively, in the other setting. For example, if you’re testing a biologic growth factor like filgrastim or pegfilgrastim, if it worked in 1 setting, it’s going to work across other settings. I think that everybody’s been able to embrace that much more easily compared to the drugs that are being used for therapeutic purposes to treat cancers.
There’s growing acceptance that this extrapolation is reasonable, but interchangeability is different. You can switch from the reference to the biosimilar at any time. Interchangeable means that there is little difference. The pharmacist who’s filling the prescription can decide which one they’re going to provide you, based on the criteria—what the insurance requests, what’s cheaper, what they bargained for, et cetera—to get a better group price.
So that would be interchangeability. They don’t have to come back to the provider and say, “You ordered the branded trastuzumab. Can I give this biosimilar instead?” If it’s an interchangeable product, the pharmacist can change.
As described by the regulatory agencies, interchangeability is complex because it requires studies that show that you can switch from one to the other and then back again without changing immunogenicity or safety. Obviously you’re not going to be able to look at efficacy well in that setting. It really hasn’t been studied in any appreciable way for the therapeutic anticancer drugs, and I don’t know that it really will be something that happens in the community. In the United States, pharmacists will generally have to ask, “Can we use the biosimilar?” Much of that will be decided by insurers and by negotiations between our infusion centers and drug providers, in terms of which agent is being provided at a lower cost.
Cornelius F. Waller, MD: Manufacturers go to the regulatory agents when they start production of these biosimilars and ask for guidance either by the FDA or [European Medicines Agency, EMA]. Part of this guidance, after the physical chemical analyses and safety and purity issues, and then based on phase 1 and phase 3 data in patients, is that the manufacturer has to present thorough pharmacovigilance and a safety program that takes place after approval of the drug. As a manufacturer, you have to assure that the production is not being changed because then, in a way, you produce your own biosimilar of what you have produced before and you have to follow certain guidelines to assure that the quality is not changing.
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.
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.
The Biosimilar Void: 90% of Biologics Coming Off Patent Will Lack Biosimilars
February 5th 2025Of the 118 biologics losing exclusivity over the next decade, only 10% have biosimilars in development, meaning a vast majority of biologics have no pipeline, which limits savings potential for the health care system.
BioRationality: No More Biosimilars—Just Biogenerics
February 3rd 2025Sarfaraz K. Niazi, PhD, argues that regulatory agencies should eliminate redundant clinical efficacy testing for biosimilars, recognizing them as "biogenerics" since physicochemical and in vitro biological comparisons are sufficient to ensure safety and efficacy.