- Bone Health
- Immunology
- Hematology
- Respiratory
- Dermatology
- Diabetes
- Gastroenterology
- Neurology
- Oncology
- Ophthalmology
- Rare Disease
- Rheumatology
Molly Burich: Biosimilar Naming, Labeling, and Prescribing
Molly Burich, MS, associate director of public policy: biosimilars, pipeline, and reimbursement at Boehringer Ingelheim, discusses current FDA guidance on the naming and labeling of biosimilar treatments.
Transcript:
What impact does current guidance on naming and labeling have on prescribing biosimilars?
I think we’re very thankful that the FDA has released draft guidance on labeling and finalized its naming guidance. These are both important steps. The labels and the names in many ways are how patients and physicians know the product and learn the product, and for physicians how they understand the clinical data behind it.
In terms of labeling, we support that the label should look very similar to the reference product. After all, these are biosimilars to the reference product, so we believe that those labels should look very similar and are pleased with the direction the FDA seems to be taking in labeling. As it pertains to naming, the FDA did end up finalizing the use of a four-digit suffix that is devoid of meaning. I think this is a little bit challenging and this result was not what a lot of stakeholders, including some biosimilar manufacturers, wanted to see. I think we would have preferred that a suffix, if it’s needed, has to be meaningful so that doctors and patients, if needed, can remember it and it’s attributed to the manufacturer.
Unfortunately, that isn’t the way the agency went. So, that’s another opportunity for education to make sure that physicians know our suffix, know that it’s devoid of meaning as much as they can remember it, and that patients certainly understand that while there is a suffix that differentiates it, it doesn’t mean the product is any less safe or efficacious.
13 Strategies to Avoid the Nocebo Effect During Biosimilar Switching
December 18th 2024A systematic review identified 13 strategies, including patient and provider education, empathetic communication, and shared decision-making, to mitigate the nocebo effect in biosimilar switching, emphasizing the need for a multifaceted approach to improve patient perceptions and therapeutic outcomes.
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: 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.
Commercial Payer Coverage of Biosimilars: Market Share, Pricing, and Policy Shifts
December 4th 2024Researchers observe significant shifts in payer preferences for originator vs biosimilar products from 2017 to 2022, revealing growing payer interest in multiple product options, alongside the increasing market share of biosimilars, which contributed to notable reductions in both average sales prices and wholesale acquisition costs.
Perceptions of Biosimilar Switching Among Veterans With IBD
December 2nd 2024Veterans with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) prioritize shared decision-making, transparency, and individualized care in biosimilar switching, favoring delayed switching for severe cases and greater patient control.
