Journal Article

Improving oncology biosimilar launches in the EU, the USA, and Japan: an updated Policy Review from the Southern Network on Adverse Reactions

Bennett, Charles L, Witherspoon, Bartlett J, Yang, Y Tony, Schooley, Benjamin, Ray, Paul, Schoen, Martin W, Hoque, Shamia, Chen, Brian K, Hwang, Catherine S, Aboulafia, David M, Taylor, Matthew A, Hrushesky, William J, Wyatt, Michael D, Yarnold, Paul R

2020

Overview

The EU, the USA, and Japan account for the majority of biological pharmacotherapy use worldwide. Biosimilar regulatory approval pathways were authorised in the EU (2006), in Japan (2009), and in the USA (2015), to facilitate approval of biological drugs that are highly similar to reference products and to encourage market competition. Between 2007 and 2020, 33 biosimilars for oncology were approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), 16 by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and ten by the Japan Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA). Some of these approved applications were initially rejected because of manufacturing concerns (four of 36 [11%] with the EMA, seven of 16 [44%] with the FDA, none of ten for the PMDA). Median times from initial regulatory submission before approval of oncology biosimilars were 1·5 years (EMA), 1·3 years (FDA), and 0·9 years (PMDA). Pharmacists can substitute biosimilars for reference biologics in some EU countries, but not in the USA or Japan. US regulation prohibits substitution, unless the biosimilar has been approved as interchangeable, a designation not yet achieved for any biosimilar in the USA. Japan does not permit biosimilar substitution, as prescribers must include the product name on each prescription and that specific product must be given to the patient. Policy Reviews published in 2014 and 2016 in The Lancet Oncology focused on premarket and postmarket policies for oncology biosimilars before most of these drugs received regulatory approval. In this Policy Review from the Southern Network on Adverse Reactions, we identify factors preventing the effective launch of oncology biosimilars. Introduction to the market has been more challenging with therapeutic than for supportive care oncology biosimilars. Addressing region-specific competition barriers and educational needs would improve the regulatory approval process and market launches for these biologics, therefore expanding patient access to these products in the EU, the USA, and Japan.

• Publisher: Elsevier Ltd,Elsevier Limited
• Subject: Antineoplastic Agents, Immunological - adverse effects / Antineoplastic Agents, Immunological - therapeutic use / Bevacizumab - therapeutic use / Biological products / Biosimilar Pharmaceuticals - adverse effects / Biosimilar Pharmaceuticals - therapeutic use / Breast cancer / Cancer therapies / Chemotherapy / Competition / Drug Approval - legislation & jurisprudence / Drug Substitution / Drug therapy / Drugs / Erythropoietin - analogs & derivatives / Erythropoietin - therapeutic use / Europe / FDA approval / Filgrastim - therapeutic use / Hematinics - adverse effects / Hematinics - therapeutic use / Hematology, Oncology, and Palliative Medicine / Humans / Japan / Leukemia / Litigation / Manufacturing / Medical equipment / Metastasis / Neoplasms - drug therapy / Neoplasms - immunology / Neoplasms - mortality / Neutrophils / Oncology / Patient Safety / Pharmacists / Pharmacokinetics / Policy Making / Polyethylene Glycols - therapeutic use / R&D / Regulatory approval / Research & development / Rheumatoid arthritis / Risk Assessment / Rituximab - therapeutic use / Side effects / Trastuzumab - therapeutic use / Treatment Outcome / United States / United States Food and Drug Administration - legislation & jurisprudence