Dataset Information

Challenges Faced by the Biopharmaceutical Industry in the Development and Marketing Authorization of Biosimilar Medicines in BRICS-TM Countries: An Exploratory Study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Biosimilars are expected to emerge as a rapidly growing segment of the biopharmaceutical industry. However, the biosimilar industry faces multiple challenges and obstacles in developing and marketing these complex products. Divergent regulatory framework in emerging countries adds to repetitive trials and increased cost of biosimilar development, delaying the approval process. Due to such roadblocks, healthcare systems and patients are yet to realize the full benefits of biosimilars.

Objectives

The aim of this exploratory study was to specifically identify the challenges faced by the industry in emerging countries including Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Turkey and Mexico (BRICS-TM), pertaining to biosimilar development and the regulatory approval process. In particular, this study aims to understand the perceptions of industry on the barriers faced by them in terms of complexity, costs for biosimilar development and time-to-market for biosimilar product.

Methods

A semi-quantitative questionnaire was designed based on secondary research. A total of 93 industry personnel and representatives from 14 trade associations from the BRICS-TM countries with 15-year minimum experience were identified and invited to take part in the study and participate in interviews, which were recorded verbatim. Data processing and analysis was carried out; descriptive statistics were used for quantitative data and content analysis was employed to generate themes for qualitative data.

Results

Of the 107 biopharmaceutical industry and trade association representatives invited to participate in the study, respondents from 33 biopharmaceutical companies agreed to take part and underwent the interviews. The industry personnel perceived biosimilar guidelines and approval processes as being protracted and in a state of evolution. The absence of an abridged approval pathway limited effectiveness of the regulatory process. The biggest hurdles in the development of biosimilar dossiers were the sourcing of the reference biological product and expectations around confirmatory clinical trials by the agencies. The non-comprehensive implementation of a stepwise approach resulting in unnecessary toxicity studies was also reported as a major challenge. The authors recommend further primary research with BRICS-TM regulatory agencies in order to propose a simplified pathway for development and approval.

Conclusions

Lack of standardized biosimilar development criteria and regulatory convergence across BRICS-TM agencies has led to challenges in multi-country development programmes for these medicines, in turn impacting the ability of industry to launch newer and more affordable biosimilars.

SUBMITTER: Rahalkar H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8295548 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Objective: The aim was to critically evaluate well-established regulatory agencies mAb biosimilar guidelines for development and marketing authorization about quality, efficacy and safety and compare to BRICS-TM regulations to identify challenges. Materials and Methods: The current valid guidelines of EMA, WHO, USFDA, BGTD/HC, ICH, and BRICS-TM were obtained from official websites and comparative qualitative review was performed. Results: The review revealed that Health Canada uses mAb specific guidelines from EMA or USFDA when necessary. The BRICS agencies (except Russia) have incorporated some or most of the WHO SBP TRS and related annexes in similar national biotechnological/biological guidelines; however, gaps or insufficient information have been identified. The Russian Federation has issued general product registration guideline/s with very brief information about mAbs. The TMMDA (Turkey) has published an updated biosimilar guideline which parallels those of the EMA and the ones from WHO; however, no mAb specific guidelines are published. COFEPRIS (Mexico) has published a biotechnological/biological product registration guideline with no information about mAb. The SAHPRA biosimilar guideline has an annex on mAbs which focuses on non-clinical and clinical aspects. The comparative evaluation of BRICS-TM agencies indicates a gap pertaining to clarification for physico-chemical characterization, manufacturing process, overages and compatibility requirements between biological substances and excipients specifically on mAbs. In vitro assay requirements seem quite aligned with those of WHO, whereas in vivo studies mostly have disparity in terms of necessity, type of studies as well as design and criteria. Clinical safety and efficacy studies are indicated in emerging regulatory agencies, however detailed information pertaining to design, size of populations, requirements for primary and secondary endpoints, clarity and evaluation criteria differ. In general, BRICS-TM agencies allow extrapolation of indications provided that pre-defined conditions are met. Interchangeability, switching and substitution of biosimilars are not defined in most of BRIC-TM guidelines whereas South Africa, by law, allows neither interchangeability nor substitution. Pediatric research remains questionable across BRICS-TM. Conclusions: EMA, USFDA guidelines are broadly aligned with WHO and in addition, they also contain specific requirements pertaining to their own region. BRICS-TM has considerably less defined mAb specific biosimilar development and comparability parameters in their published guidelines.

Project description:With the implementation of the new EU regulation on in vitro diagnostics (IVDR) in May 2022, notified bodies will be required to assess Companion Diagnostics (CDx). The EMA and national medicines agencies will be consulted on the performance and safety of CDx. In this paper, we report on our systematic review on how the EMA has dealt with CDx in dossiers for marketing authorization procedures, in 2017-2019, and in scientific advice procedures in 2016-2020, prior to the implementation of the new IVDR. Out of 167 medicines approved or refused by the EMA, CDx played a role for 20 medicines during assessment. Both European public assessment reports (EPARs) and the internal day 80 and day 120 assessment reports (ARs) of the EMA centralized marketing authorization procedures for these 20 medicines were analyzed in detail to determine how CDx were assessed. Likewise, in 46 of 159 cases in which scientific advice was provided, CDx were mentioned in the question-and-answer section of the scientific advice, and these were analyzed in an analogous manner. Our analysis indicates that clinical performance and analytical performance of the CDx were the most-discussed topics, being discussed 11 and seven times in the 20 EPARs and 59 and 29 times in the ARs, respectively. For scientific advice, clinical and analytical performance was discussed 65 and 22 times in the 46 retrieved mentions of scientific advice. Other aspects in relation to CDx were discussed as well, although at a lower frequency, in assessment reports and scientific advice. Overall, our analysis demonstrates that, despite the absence of an obligation from a legal point of view, EMA has gained experience on the assessment of CDx, most notably regarding its analytical and clinical performance. This experience may be useful in situations in which the EMA and national agencies of EU member states will formally be consulted by notified bodies regarding the performance and safety of CDx. In addition, the issues raised in the EPARs, ARs and scientific advice reports provide insight for applicants on aspects of CDx that need careful consideration.

Project description:Background: The aim of the study was to identify, interpret, and compare the current perspectives of regulatory agencies in six member countries of BRICS-TM (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Turkey, and Mexico) on the different criteria used for biosimilar development and marketing authorisation process. Methods: A semi-quantitative questionnaire was developed covering the organisation of agency, biosimilar development criteria and marketing authorisation process and sent to seven regulatory agencies covering the BRICS-TM countries. All data was kept anonymous and confidential. Data processing and analysis was carried out; descriptive statistics were used for quantitative data and content analysis was employed to generate themes for qualitative data. Results: Out of the seven regulatory agencies included in the study, six representatives provided the responses. The perspectives of these six regulatory agencies varied on a number of aspects relating to the review criteria for biosimilar development and licencing process. The most prevalent model for data assessment is the "full review" of a marketing authorisation application. There is lack of a standard approach across the agencies on sourcing of the reference biological product, in vivo toxicity studies and confirmatory clinical studies. Most agencies restrict interaction with biosimilar developers and any scientific advice is non-binding. The marketing authorisation approval depends on scientific assessment of the dossier, sample analysis and GMP certification. The agencies do not issue any public assessment report specifying the summary basis of biosimilar approval. Conclusion: Regulatory agencies across the six emerging economies are steadily improving the regulatory mechanism in the area of biosimilars. However, there remains scope for increasing the effectiveness and efficiency of the processes by encouraging open and transparent interaction with developers, adopting a flexible approach toward accepting advanced analytical data in lieu of clinical studies and enhancing regulatory reliance amongst agencies. This will help to simplify the new biosimilar development programmes and make them more cost-effective.